Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2014 


https://archive.org/details/methodistarmorreOOfoot_0 


e  Methodist  Armor  Reviewed. 


The  Rise  and  Progress  of  the  Baptises 


AND- 


OUTLINES  OF  HISTORY 


OF  THE 


BRIEMREEM220GIATI0N. 


By  JAMES  H.  FOOTE, 

DELLAPLANE,  N.  C. 


He  taketh  from  him  all  his  Armor,  wherein  he  trusted." — Luke  XI,  22. 
/ praise  you,  that  ye  keep  the  ordinances  as  I  delivered  them  to  you." 

[I  Cor.  XT,  2. 


STATE8VILLE,  N.  C.  : 
LANDMARK    POWER  PRESSES. 


3ch.  R. 


TO  THE 
CHURCH  OF  CHRIST 
AND 

ESPECIALLY  TO  THE  BRETHREN 
OF  THE 
BRIER  CREEK  ASSOCIATION, 
THIS  LITTLE  VOLUME 
IS 

RESPECTFULLY  DEDICATED- 
BY  THE  AUTHOR. 


384880 


{Extract  from  Minutes  of  Brier  Creek  Baptist  Association,  held  at  Swan  Creek 
Church,  Yadkin  County,  September  22-24, 1887.] 

The  following*  paper  was  read  and  adopted  by  the  As- 
sociation : 

YYhereas,  We  have  learned  that  Bro.  J.  H.  Foote  of 
our  Association  has  written  a  reply  to  a  book  called  "The 
Methodist  Armor,"  written  by  H.  T.  Hudson,  D.  D.,  of  the 
North  Carolina  Methodist  Conference,  in  which  work  our 
principles  as  Baptists  are  assailed,  therefore, 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  three  members  of  this 
body  be  appointed  to  examine  Bro.  Foote's  manuscript  as 
to  the  advisability  of  encouraging  the  same  for  publica- 
tion. 

L.  P.  Gwaltney,  T.  W.  Paris  and  1).  W.  Pool  were  ap- 
pointed a  committee. 

The  Committee  reported  as  follows : 

The  Committee  appointed  to  examine  the  manuscript 
of  Bro.  Foote  do  respectfully  and  earnestly  recommend  its 
immediate  publication. 

L.  P.  Gwaltney, 
T.  W.  Paris. 

Report  adopted.  D.  W.  Pool. 


To  the  Reader. 


- — o — 

Some  friend  has  handed  us  a  very  neat  little  book  en- 
titled : 

"THE  METHODIST  ARMOR, 

BY 

Hilary  T.  Hudson,  D.  D., 

OF  THE 

North  Carolina  Conference," 
which  we  see  is  very  generally  circulated  among  our  Meth- 
odist friends  in  this  section  of  the  country  and  commended 
for  its  many  excellencies. 

We  propose  to  review  briefly  some  portions  of  this 
volume.  It  is  not  from  a  fondness  of  controversy,  but  a 
desire  to  vindicate  the  honor  of  Christ,  and  his  ordinances 
as  practiced  by  the  Baptists,  from  charges  of  an  odious 
kind,  that  excited  the  author  to  compose  and  publish  the 
following  pages.  The  writer  takes  up  his  pen  entirely  on 
the  defensive,  for  had  not  the  principles  and  practice  of 
Baptists  been  stigmatized  as  " indecent  and  narrow-heart- 
ed bigotry"  these  pages  would  have  never  seen  the  light. 
For  instance,  on  page  81  of  the  above  named  book,  the 
following  language  is  used  :  uIt  is  satisfactory  to  discov- 
er that  all  attempts  to  impose  upon  Christians  a  practice 
(immersion)  repulsive  to  the  feelings,  dangerous  to  the 
health  and  offensive  to  delicacy,  is  destitute  of  all  scriptur- 
al authority  and  really  of  primitive  practice"  Again,  on 
page  93  of  his  book,  Dr.  Hudson  says:  "Baptism  by 
pouring  comports  with  decency  and  propriety,  but  does 
immersion?"  A  little  further  on  the  Dr.  says,  speaking  of 
the  Baptists:    ''And  to  exclude  pious  Christians  from  the 


8 


Lord's  table  because  they  have  not  been  immersed,  is  nar- 
row-hearted bigotry" 

Again,  on  page  227  of  his  book,  the  Dr.  says:  "As 
Luther  and  his  followers  had  a  right  to  organize  the  Luth- 
eran Church,  and  as  John  Calvin  and  Knox  had  a  right  to 
organize  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  as  Bishop  Crannon 
and  Henry  VIII  had  a  right  to  organize  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  England,  and  Roger  Williams  and  his  brethren 
had  a  right  to  organize  the  Baptist  Church;  so  had  Mr. 
Wesley,  Coke  and  Asburya  right  to  organize  the  Methodist 
Church." 

Now  the  reader  will  see  from  the  above  quotations,  if 
he  be  a  Baptist,  he  is  charged  with  practicing  an  indecent 
and  dangerous  ordinance,  and  that  his  Church  was  first 
organized  by  Roger  Williams !  while  he  has  always  been 
taught  and  believed  that  Jesus  Christ  alone  is  the  author 
and  founder  of  the  Baptist  Church. 

li  Good  friends,  sweet  friends,  let  me  not  stir  you  up 

To  such  a  sudden  flood  of  mutiny, 

They  that  have  done  this  deed  are  honorable; 

What  private  griefs  they  have,  alas  I  know  not, 

That  made  them  do  it.    They  are  wise  and  honorable 

And  will  no  doubt  with  reason  answer  you. 

I  come  not  friends  to  steal  away  your  hearts  ; 

I  am  no  orator  as  Brutus  is, 

But  as  you  know  me  all,  a  plain,  blunt  man, 

That  love  my  friends,  and  that  they  know  full  well 

That  gave  me  public  leave  to  speak  of  him  ; 

For  I  have  neither  wit  nor  worth  nor  words, 

Action  nor  utterance,  nor  the  power  of  speech 

To  stir  men's  blood     T  only  speak  right  on.  " 


Preface. 


— o — 

The  matter  contained  in  this  little  book  contains  no 
originality  except  an  attempt  to  collect  and  combine  ex- 
tracts from  various  authors  and  present  them  in  as  plain 
and  simple  a  manner  as  possible,  so  as  to  make  it  readable 
to  the  unlearned,  as  well  as  to  answer  the  arguments  of  my 
friend  who  has  followed  in  the  track  of  many  of  his  brethren 
who  have  written  on  the  same  subjects  before  him.  The 
quotations  are  taken  generally  from  the  works  of  Pendle- 
ton, Ford,  Booth,  Stuart,  Fuller,  Mell  and  others,  whose 
Christian  character  for  truth  no  one  can  with  reason  doubt  . 

It  will  moreover  be  seen  that  the  writer  has  done  little 
more  in  adverting  to  the  mode  of  baptism  and  the  origin 
of  infant  baptism,  than  to  collect  and  arrange  Qoncessions 
of  the  greatest  and  best  men  found  in  the  Pedo  Baptist 
world.  A  body  of  concessions  so  complete  and  overwhelm- 
ing at  every  point  could  not  be  found  in  regard  to  any  oth- 
er practice,  yet  maintained  by  such  large  bodies  of  excellent 
Christians  as  still  uphold  infant  baptism  and  sprinkling  or 
pouring  as  the  proper  mode.  The  Scriptures,  themselves, 
we  think,  are  plain  and  easily  to  be  understood  by  every 
unbiased  reader,  much  more  so  to  the  unlettered  mind  than 
the  mystified  volumes  of  Doctors  of  Divinity,  written  often 
to  support  the  dogmas  of  their  own  class  than  to  throw 
light  upon  obscure  portions  of  the  Word  of  God.  In  con- 
clusion, for  his  Christian  brethren  of  every  denomination 
the  writer  ha  sever  cherished  fraternal  attachments  and  af- 
fection, and  the  many  hard  things  said  of  us  does  not  pre- 
vent us  from  extending  to  them  the  hand  of  Christian 
fellowship.  The  Author. 


384880 


The  Church. 

 o  

CHAPTER  I. 

On  page  33,  Dr.  Hudson  gives  his  definition  of  what  a 
Church  is,  which  is  found  in  the  Meth.  Discip.,  Art.  13th. 
Chap.  1st,  as  follows:  "The  visible  Church  of  Christ  is  a 
congregation  of  faithful  men,  in  which  the  pure  word  of 
Cod  is  preached  and  the  sacraments  duly  administered  ac- 
cording to  Christ's  ordinances  in  all  things  that  of  necessi- 
ty are  requisite  to  the  same.  "  The  Dr.  then  adds :  "  The 
definition  of  a  Church  given  in  the  above  Article  is  broad 
and  comprehensive.  A  congregation  of  faithful  men.  The 
recognition  of  the  Bible  or  the  pure  word  of  God  as  the 
rule  of  faith  and  practice."  On  the  next  page  he  says: 
"Denominational  exclusiveness  grows  out  of  a  false  defini- 
tion of  what  a  Gospel  Church  is — the  Baptists  define — a 
visible  Church  of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of  baptized  (im- 
mersed) believers,  "  &c,  and  this  definition  he  says  cuts  off 
all  Churches  whose  members  are  not  immersed.  Hence 
their  exclusiveness.  On  page  93,  he  says:  "To  require 
immersion  in  order  to  admission  into  the  Church  is  con- 
trary to  the  teaching  of  the  Bible.  *  *  And 
to  exclude  pious  Christians  from  the  Lord's  table  because 
they  have  not  been  immersed  is  narrow-hearted  bigotry.1' 
But  the  5th  Article  of  his  Discipline  reads:  "The  Holy 
Scriptures  contain  all  things  necessary  to  salvation,  so 
that  whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved 
thereby  is  not  to  be  required  of  any  man  that  it  should  be 
believed  as  an  Article  .of  faith."  Dr.  H.  says :  "This  Arti- 
cle teaches  that  the  Bible  is  to  be  appealed  to  in  the  final 


11 

settlement  of  all  questions  of  faith  and  practice."  And 
still  he  takes  upon  himself  tie  responsibility  of  fastening 
indecency  and  narrow-hearted  bigotry  upon  the  Baptists 
who  sincerely  appeal  to  the  Bible  as  their  only  rule  of  faith 
and  practice.  They  have  no  other  Discipline — no  laws  of 
Bishops  or  Conferences  to  guide  or  govern  them.  By  the 
Bible  must  they  stand  or  fall. 

There  can  be  only  one  Scriptural  Church  of  Christ  un- 
less Christ  founded  more  than  one  and  gave  them  differ- 
ent laws.  This  we  are  sure  needs  no  proof;  it  is  self-evi- 
dent. His  people  are  said  to  be  one.  "There  is  onefold 
and  one  Shepherd.  "  There  were  to  be  no  divisions  among 
them.  They  were  all  to  speak  the  same  thing.  We  read, 
it  is  true,  of  different  individual  Churches,  as  the  Church  of 
Ephesus,  the  Church  at  Phillippi,  and  so  on,  separate,  dis- 
tinct and  independent  organizations.  But  they  were  one 
in  doctrine— one  in  practice.  They  all  walked  by  the  same 
rule.  They  had  all  "One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism.'* 
We  nowhere  read  of  the  "  Branches  of  the  Church,  "  nor 
anything  like  the  Church  of  England,  The  High  Church, 
The  Low  Church,  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  North 
or  South,  &c.  We  read  of  the  Churches  of  Judea,  of  the 
Churches  of  Gallatia,  of  Samaria,  of  Gallilee  and  of  Asia  , 
&c.,'but  not  one  word  about  the  establishment  which  em- 
braces them  all,  or  any  number  of  them  all  in  one  grea,t 
Church.  No  one  can  fairly  and  impartially  read  the  New 
Testament  and  not  discover  that  the  Church  Christ  or- 
dained, set  up,  was  a  visible  local  assembly,  having  no 
lords,  no  masters,  no  rulers  but  Christ  himself  who  is  its 
head.  !}ach  Church,  as  it  was  organized,  was  complete 
within  itself  and  entirely  independent  of  all  others.  It  was 
not  a  combination  of  any  Churches,  or  as  our  Methodist 
friends  would  say  "Societies."  So  nowhere  do  the  Scrip- 
tures mention  anything  like  a  vast  combination  of  socie- 
ties, subordinate  and  dependent  ilpon  one  general  Church. 
Each  Church  constituted  by  the  Apostles  was  democratic 


12 


In  principle  and  independent  of  all  others  in  all  its  transac- 
tions. Such  are  the  Baptist  Churches,  as  we  shall  show 
from  that  day  till  the  present,  Apostolic  in  origin  and 
Apostolic  in  practice.  The  Baptists  have  as  much  right  to 
give  their  definition  of  what  they  believe  to  be  a  true  Gos- 
pel Church  is,  as  the  Methodists.  And  the  5th  Art.  of  their 
Discipline  before  quoted,  says:  " Whatsoever  is  not  'read 
therein '  .nor  may  be  'proved  thereby7  is  not  to  be  required 
of  any  man  that  it  should  be  believed  as  an  article  of  faith. ' 5 
Now,  let  us  apply  this  rule :  The  Baptists  don't  "  read  in 
the  Scriptures  "  that  a  Gospel  Church  consisted  of  any  but 
immersed  believers,  nor  do  they  think  it  can  be  proved 
thereby  to  the  contrary.  Anthing  else,  therefore,  accord- 
ing to  the  Dr's.  theory,  "  Is  not  to  be  required  of  any  man 
that  it  should  be  believed  as  an  article  of  faith. "  But  to 
return  to  the  Scriptures  to  see  if  we  cannot  learn  certainly 
what  is  a  Gospel  Church.  Christ  used  the  word  but  twice 
while  on  earth.  The  first  is  Matthew  xvi-18:  "On  this 
rock  will  I  build  my  Church  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not 
prevail  against  it.  "  And  this  is  the  first  place  it  is  used  in 
the  New  Testament. 

On  this  important  text  we  shall  use  the  ideas  and  some 
of  the  language  of  a  distinguished  modern  writer,  being  so 
pertinent  to  our  purpose.  Now,  what  was  it  our  Saviour 
said  he  would  build  ?  We  can  ascertain  by  examining  the 
object  built,  after  it  was  completed.  We  have  already  seen 
that  it  was  a  local  and  independent  assembly .  But  the  ob- 
jecter  will  say ' '  That  it  was  to  be  a  perpetual  organization, ' ' 
since  "  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it  .  "  But 
no  local  organization  has  been  perpetual,  therefore  it  can- 
not have  been  any  local  organization. "  That  the  first 
Churches  have  long  ago  vanished  from  the  earth.  In  the 
very  cities  where  the  apostles  constituted  so  many  Church- 
es, even  upon  their  ruins,  "idolatry  and  paganism  hold  su- 
preme sway. "  This  view  at  first  seems  reasonable.  Yet 
we  think  we  can  show  that  Christ's  Church  was  a  visible  lo- 


18 


c&l  organization,  and  independent,  has  never  ceased  to 
exist  during  these  1800  years.  It  is  not  the  Methodist 
Church,  for  Dr.  H.  says  that  was  founded  by  John  Wesley 
about  100  years  ago,  and  it  is  not  the  Presbyterian,  for 
that  was  founded  by  John  Calvin.  It  was  not  the  Episco- 
pal, for  that  began  with  King  Henry  the  VIII.  It  was  not 
the  Lutheran,  for  Martin  Luther  was  its  founder.  It  was 
not  the  Boman  Catholic,  for  that  belongs  to  Satin,  and 
was  first  formally  organized  by  Constantine,  the  first  Chris- 
tian Emperor  of  Rome,  and  who  assumed  supreme  control 
of  both  Church  and  State  during  the  4th  century  of  the 
Christian  era.  What  is  it  then  ?  How  has  it  existed  ?  Let 
us  see— you  might  say— "  It  was  the  Church  universal — that 
it  consisted  of  all  the  true  Churches  of  Christ  in  one  general 
organization.  "  But  if  you  mean  by  this  "  some  universal 
Church,  and  not  existing  in  a  practicable  way ,  "  we  cannot 
answer.  But  if  you  mean  that  there  was  an  actual  and 
visible  organization  which  included  all  the  members  of  the 
Churches  of  Christ,  you  can  surely  produce  some  of  its  acts 
and  doings.  For  we  have  the  acts  of  the  Church  at  Anti- 
och,  some  records  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem  and  of  oth- 
ers ;  but  we  see  nothing  of  the  sayings  or  doings  of  this 
universal  Church.  If  any  such  existed  there  surely  would 
have  been  some  history  of  it  left  on  record.  We  find  noth- 
ing of  it  in  the  Scriptures.  The  Churches  spoken  of  by  the 
apostles  were  separate,  independent  bodies,  and  never  com- 
bined in  any  such  general  Church.  And  the  Saviour's  lan- 
guage could  hardly  apply  to  anything  invisible,  for  a 
building  is  not  only  a  visible  but  tangible  object.  "Upon 
this  rock  will  I  build  my  Church,  "  does  not  mean  any  par- 
ticular Church  as  at  Jerusalem,  &c,,  nor  does  it  mean  one 
great  Church  composed  of  all  others,  but  it  simply  meant 
the  name  of  his  institution.  To  make  it  more  plain— we 
speak  of  the  court's  decision  or  the  court's  charge — the 
verdict  of  the  jury,  &c.  Now,  everybody  knows  when  we 
speak  of  the  court  or  the  jury,  we  do  not  mean  any  partie- 


14 

ular  individual  judge,  nor  any  particular  body  of  12  men, 
nor  do  we  mean  all  the  judges  or  juries  in  one,  but  simply 
before  that  judge  or  jury  before  whom  the  trial  may  come. 
Indeed  a  suit  at  law  may  continue  from  one  court  to  an- 
other. The  first  be  dissolved  and  jury  discharged— others 
follow  and  disappear—  the  jury  is  still  an  institution  for  the 
administration  of  justice — thousands  of  juries  may  be  dis- 
missed, still  the  jury,  as  an  institution,  is  perpetual.  It 
will  continue  as  long  as  the  constitution  of  the  English  or 
American  Government  shall  last.  And  if  we  should  say  it 
is  an  institution  "built"  on  the  "rock"  of  our  constitu- 
tion, and  that  all  traitors  and  tyrants  "  cannot  prevail 
against"  and  overthrow  the  institution  of  the  jury,  we 
should  speak  of  it  in  the  same  manner  as  Christ  did  of  his 
Church.  We  think  this  is  plain.  If  this  be  so,  let  us  look  a 
little  further  into  this  text  .  What  did  Christ  mean  by  the 
word  "rock,  "  upon  which  he  built  his  Church?  (We  have 
our  Greek  Testament  before  us,  written* in  the  very  same 
language  the  Saviour  spoke.)  He  could  not  have  meant 
Peter,  as  some  have  argued— for  the  word  petros  first  used 
— "  Thou  art  petros" — is  in  the  masculine  gender,  and  then 
immediately  the  gender  is  changed  to  the  neutra  petra— 
thus:  " Thou  art  Petros,  and  upon  this  petra  I  will  build 
my  church.  "  He  says  to  Peter,  your  name  is  Rock,  and 
upon  this  rock,  &c.  Peter's  name  suggested  the  figure 
used.  But  what  did  he  mean?  Read  the  context  and  it  is 
as  plain  as  any  other  passage.  Christ  asked  his  apostles 
what  people  said  about  him.  "Whom  do  men  say  that  I 
am?  "  They  answered,  "  Some  say  John  the  Baptist,  some 
Elias,  &c.  "  "  But  whom  do  you  say  that  lam?"  Peter 
answered  for  them  all :  "Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
the  living  God. "  This  was  their  confession  of  faith.  It 
was  what  Christ  wanted  to  hear  them  say.  It  was  their 
faith  in  him  their  only  hope  for  salvation.  Jesus  replies 
that  such  faith  came  from  God  alone.  "Blessed  art  thou? 
Simon,  son  of  Jonas,  for  flesh  and  blood  have  not  revealed 


this  unto  thee ;  but  my  Father."  It  was  Peter's  faith  and 
likewise  the  confession  of  it,  that  formed  the  foundation,  in 
la  figurative  sense,  of  this  building.  "  The  Church  consists 
of  individuals,  but  before  these  individuals  can  be  erected 
into  a  Church,  the  foundation  must  belaid  by  a  profession 
like  Peter's,  of  faith  in  Christ. "  The  foundation  is  a  pre- 
requisite for  a  permanent  building.  So  this  confession  of 
faith  was  a  prerequisite  essential  and  necessary  to  the 
foundation  of  Christ's  Church.  The  Church  consists  of  in- 
dividuals, but  before  these  individuals  can  be  erected  into  a 

i  Church,  the  foundation  must  be  laid  on  their  part  by  a  pro- 
fession of  faith  in  Christ.  The  proper  materials  for  the 
building  in  ust  be  of  faith.  Philip  said  to  the  Eunich,  ''If 
thou  believest,  thou  mayst  be  baptized" — no  other  condi- 
tion would  suffice.  A  jury  would  not  be  legal,  unless  qual- 
ified as  the  law  directs.   So  a  church  having  been  founded 

I  on  any  other  "rock"  than  u  faith  "is not  a  Gospel  Church. 

I  The  Master  so  orders  it.  So  we  see  it  is  a  local  organiza- 
tion made  up  only  of  those  who  profess  faith  in  Christ,  as 
did  the  Apostles. 

Paul  says  to  the  Church  at  Corinth:  ktYe  are  God's 
building. "— (1  Cor.  111-0.)  To  the  Ephesians,  he  says: 
"In  whom  ye  also  are  builded  together  for  an  habitation  of 
God  through  the  Spirit.  "  So  in  Col.  11-6-7 :  "As  ye  have 
received  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord,  so  walk  ye  in  him,  rooted 
(founded)  and  built  up  in  him,  and  established  in  the  faith 
that  ye  have  been  taught.  "  So  in  Jude,  "Building  up  of 
yourselves  on  your  most  holy  faith.  "  And  thus  we  see  a 
true  Gospel  Church  rests  on  the  rock  of  faith,  and  not  on 
external  forms.  It  consists  also  of  believers,  and  not  be- 
lievers and  their  baptized  children  and  "penitent  seekers.  " 
If  is  a  perpet ual  institution,  standing  amid  the  storms  of 
persecution,  sacrifices  and  death  of  its  advocates  from  its 
first  organization  till  now.  "The  gates  of  hell  shall  not 
prevail  against  it."  Its  martyrs,  by  their  blood  and  the 
smoke  of  their  ashes,  ha  ve  cemented  its  walls  to  everlast- 


16 

ing  glory.  It  has  never  become  apostate,  and  never  need* 
to  be  reformed  or  changed  by  the  inventions  of  men. 

Now  look  at  the  only  other  text  the  Saviour  uses  ttii 
word  Church.  Here  it  is— Matt,  18th— ''  Moreover,  if  thy 
brother  shall  trespass  against  thee,  go  and  tell  him  hi^ 
fault  between  thee  and  him  alone.  If  he  shall  hear  thee, 
thou  hast  gained  thy  brother;  but  if  he  will  not  hear  thee, 
fhen  take  with  thee  one  or  two  more,  that  in  the  mouth  of 
two  or  three  witnesses  every  word  may  be  established. 
And  if  he  neglect  to  hear  them  tell  it  to  the  Church;  but  if 
he  shall  neglect  to  hear  the  Church,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as 
a  heathen  man  and  a  publican.  " 

How  simple  is  this  declaration  of  our  Saviour!  He 
here  lays  down  the  fundamental  law  of  discipline  in  his 
Church.   How  carefully  does  he  provide  for  the  rights  of) 
the  members  t  o  secure  harmony  among  them !   If  the  mem-  ■ 
ber  aggrieved  fails  to  obtain  reconciliation  with  the  offend- 
er, he  is  to  tell  it  to  the  Church;  and  if  he  will  not  hear  the- 
Church,  he  is  to  be  cut  off  from  membership.    The  Church  i 
is  the  final  arbiter,  from  which  there  is  no  appeal.  The 
Church  is  supreme— its  decisions  cannot  be  reversed.  Christ 
alone  is  its  head  and  author.   The  Church  is  his  executive. 
What  the  Church  does  is  to  settle  all  matters  of  discipline. 
No  one  man,  however  high  in  authority,  must 11  lord  it  over 
God's  heritage.  "   The  minister,  the  pastor,  is  but  the  ser- 
vant of  the  Church,  and  is  amenable  to  it  alone,  if  he  should 
become  guilty  of  immoral  conduct.    Its  laws  and  ordi- 
nances are  of  Divine  authority,  and  cannot  be  changed. 
Yet  Dr.  Hudson  says,    Every  particular  Church  may  or- 
dain, change  or  abolish  rites  and  ceremonies  so  all  things 
be  done  to  edification. "   See  Methodist  Discipline,  page 
SI.   Now,  Christ's  Church,  if  it  be  an  executive,  cannot  be 
also  a  legislative  institution .   It  cannot  make  its  laws  and 
then  execute  them.   It  cannot  change  or  abolish  any  of 
the  rites  (ordinances)  committed  to  its  keeping.  The 
Church  that  does  this  is  not  the  one  Christ  organized.  The 


17 


plan  he  laid  down,  the  Apostles  and  their  followers  strictly 
observe.  But  how  does  an  offended  member  in  the  Metho- 
dist Church  seek  for  relief?  Christ  says,  "Tell  it  to  the 
Church.  "  His  brethren  say,  "  No ;  you  must  tell  it  to  the 
minister  in  charge,  or  to  a  committee  appointed  by  him.  " 
If  lie  and  they  do  not  decide  and  please  both,  why  go  to 
the  Quarterly  Conference,  and  if  you  don't  obtain  satisfac- 
tion there,  go  to  tho  Bishops,  or  to  those  whom  he  may 
appoint.  The  Church,  that  is  the  local  assembly  to  which 
the  brethren  belong,  is  not  known  in  the  matter.  The 
whole  business  is  taken  away  from  the  place  where  Christ 
fixed  it  and  lodged  in  the  hands  of  those  who  are  in  au- 
thority over  the  Church.  The  command  is,  1  Tell  it  to  the 
Church,  H  whose  decision  is  final,  from  it  there  is  no  appeal. 
The  laws  of  Christ  are  as  immutable  as  himself.  There  is 
no  human  authority  "to  change  or  abolish  them."  No 
Quarterly  or  Annual  Conference,  or  Bishops  must  usurp 
the  rights  of  the  Church.  On  page  41  of  the  Discipline, 
Section  7,  this  question  is  asked :  "What  are  the  duties  of 
the  elder,  deacon  or  preacher  who  has  charge  of  a  circuit, 
or  station?  Answer — "  Jlo  receive^  try  and  expel  mem- 
bers, according'  to  the  form  of  the  Discipline. "  This  is 
what  the  preacher  is  to  do — receive,  try  an  d  expel  members. 
The  -great  Apostle  Paul  was  a  tipher  in  his  day,  compared 
to  one  of  these  Methodist  circuit  riders,  in  power  and  au- 
thority. Again,  on  page  84  of  the  copy  before  me,  this 
question  is  asked  :  To  whom  is  a  Bishop  amenable  for  his 
< onduct  ?  A xswer . — £ '  To  the  General  Conference. ' '  Again . 
question  4 :  What  shall  be  done  when  an  elder,  deacon  or 
preacher  is  under  report  of  being  guilty  of  some  crime? 

Answer,  **  Let  the  Presiding  Elder  in  the  absence  of  a 
Bishop  call  as  many  traveling  ministers  as  he  shall  .s*ee  fit, 
at  least  three,  and,  if  possible,  bring  the  accused  face  to 
face.  If  the  person  be  clearly  convicted  he  shall  be  sus- 
pended from  all  official  services  in  the  Church  till  the  ensn- 
mg  Annua]  Conference,"  tiLVi)        So  it  seems  the  Church 


\ 


18 

has  nothing  to  do  in  such  matters,  while  Christ  says,  "The 
Church  alone  has  power  to  try  and  discipline  its  members, 
no  matter  what  position  they  may  fill.  On  page  91, 
"  What  shall  be  done  with  a  local  elder,  deacon  or  preach- 
er, reported  to  be  guilty  of  improper  temper,  wrords  or  ac- 
tions? "  Answer :  "  The  person  so  offending  shall  be  repre- 
hended by  the  preacher  in  charge.  Should  a  second  of- 
fense take  place,  one,  two  or  three  faithful  friends  are  to  be 
taken  as  witnesses.  If  he  then  be  not  cured,  he  shall  be 
tried  at  the  next  Annual  Conference,  "  and  so  on  up  to  the 
higher  orders  of  this  Higherarchy.  We  nowhere  find  in  the 
commands  of  Christ,  or  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  such 
monarchy,  such  power  even  over  offending  members.  All 
matters  of  discipline  were  left  to  this  independent,  local  as- 
sembly of  believers  and  their  decision  was  final.  There 
was  no  one  to  reverse  their  acts,  no  appeal  to  Elders  and 
Bishops  and  Conferences.  Here  we  see  marks  of  great  dif- 
ference between  the  true  Gospel  Church  which  Christ  organ- 
ized and  the  one  claimed  by  Dr.  Hudson  to  be  the  "nearest 
pattern  "  to  this.  But  let  us  now  briefly  examine  the  char- 
acter of  those  who  compose  the  true  Gospel  Church. 
Whatever  the  Church  was  as  first  organized  it  is  yet  and  will 
remain  the  same  till  time  stoa.ll  be  no  more,  'Tor  the  gates 
of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it/'  The  precise  time 
when  the  first  Church  was  We  do  not  know.  We  first  find 
it  transacting  business  in  Acts  1-15.  It  then  consisted  of 
only  120  members  who  met  in  an  "  upper  room ,?  and  after 
prayer  elected  one  of  their  number  to  fill  the  vacancy  oc- 
casioned by  the  death  of  Judas.  Those  were  all  disciples. 
They  were  all  professed  believers.  They  were  men  and 
women,  but  no  children.  We  observe,  too,  the  vacancy 
was  filled  by  election,  chosen  by  bnUot,\\ot  appointed  by 
some  Bishop  or  Conference.  Soon  after  this  we  read  that 
(3000)  three  thousand  were  added  in  a  single  day  and  it 
was  called  the  Church  which  was  at  Jerusalem.  All  these 
were  old  enough  to  "repent''  and  "gladly  receive  the 


/ 


19 

word/'  and  when  they  had  done  so,  were  baptized  and  add- 
ed to  the  Church,  and,  like  the  first,  they  "  continued 
steadfastly  in  the  Apostles'  doctrine  and  fellowship,  break- 
ing of  bread  and  in  prayers.  "—Acts  11-42.  It  seems, 
therefore,  that  not  a  single  one  of  these  was  a  little  babe. 
They  were  all  believers.  Five  thousand  others  were  add- 
ed, (Acts  4-4,)  both  men  and  women,  all  others  excluded. 
So  also  the  great  company  of  priests,  (Acts  6-7,)  were  not 
admitted  till  they  had  "become  obedient  to  the  faith.'! 
Here  are  over  eight  thousand  members,  but  not  one  who 
was  not  a  professed  believer.  These  and  these  alone  com- 
posed the  Church.  If  there  were  any  children,  or  uncon- 
verted seekers,  Luke  was  a  false  historian  for  he  never  in- 
timates that  there  were  children  in  the  Church. 

Can  it  be  possible  then  that  a  congregation  which  ad- 
mits infants  and  "penitent  seekers  "  to  membership  can  be 
called  a  true  Church  of  Christ!  Refer  to  " Methodist 
Tracts."  In  No.  XII,  page  248,  it  says:  "By  baptism 
we  are  admitted  into  the  Church."  Again,  page  254,  Sec. 
Cy.  "If  infants  ought  to  come  to  Christ — if  they  are  capa- 
ble of  a  dmission  into  the  Church  of  God — then  they  are 
proper  subjects  of  baptism.  But  infants  are  capable  of 
coining  to  Christ— of  admission  to  the  Church,  and  sol- 
emnly dedicated  to  God,  therefore,  his  disciples  or  ministers 
are  still  to  suffer  infants  to  come — that  is  to  be  brought 
into  the  Church! " 

Here  is  a  Church  then,  (the  Methodist)  made  up  of 
three  classes  of  persons,  viz :  Believers,  unbelievers,  and 
infants  who  are  not  conscious  of  their  becoming  such.  We 
read  nowhere  of  any  such  Church  in  the  Scriptures.  But 
let  us  examine  further.  There  is  a  book  called  "The  His- 
tory of  Methodism  as  it  was  and  is,  "  written  by  the  Rev. 
P.  I).  Gorrie,  published  in  1852  and  adopted  as  one  of  their 
standard  works.  On  page  170  it  says :  1st.  The  nature 
of  Baptism,  "It  is  a  figurative  ordinance,  symbolical  of 
our  death  unto  sin,  and  our  being  born  again  from  above, 


20 

of  being  purified  by  the  water  of  regeneration  and  receiving 
of  the  Holy  Ghost."  So  we  see.  When  Dr.  H.  baptizes 
(sprinkles)  the  baby,  it  signifies  that  "it  has  died  unto  sin 
and  been  born  again  from  above"— "  that  it  is,  or  has  been 
purified  by  the  water  of  regeneration  and  has  received  the 
Holy  Ghost. "  Do  we  not  state  the  ease  fairly?  Let  the 
reader  judge  for  himself. 

But  again,  2nd,  he  says :  "  Baptism  is  a  sign  of  profes- 
sion— a  rite  which  was  constituted  under  the  law  and  re- 
tained under  the  Gospel  as  the  distinguishing  mark  or  sign 
of  a  profession  of  faith."  So  when  you  baptize  an  infant 
or  "penieent  seeker"  it  is  a  sign  that  they  have  professed 
their  faith  in  Christ!  Again,  3rd,  "Baptism  is  also  con- 
sidered the  door  of  entrance  into  the  Church."  On  page 
173,  he  says:  "That  infants  are  scriptural  subjects  of  bap- 
tism appears  from  the  following  consideration:  1st,  the 
perpetuity  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  which  included  chil- 
dren as  well  as  adults.  2nd,  the  eligibility  of  children  to 
Church  memberships.  And  after  arguing  this  point  drawn 
from  the  circumcision  of  the  old  Jews,  says :  "There  can  be 
no  reasonable  doubt  that  infants  are  entitled  to  the  initia- 
tory rite  which  will  formally  admit  them  into  the  visible 
Church  of  Christ.  "  The  writer  goes  on  at  length  to  prove 
that  infants  are  as  much  entitled  to  membership  in  the 
Methodist  Church  as  adults.  So  we  see  unconscious  infants 
are  as  much  entitled  to  all  the  benefits  and  privileges  as 
grown-up  people.  Is  it  not  strange,  then,  when  Methodists 
refuse  to  commune  with  a  large  number  of  their  own  mem- 
bers, call  the  Baptists  a  set  of  narrow-hearted  bigots  be- 
cause they  refuse  to  commune  with  those  whom  they  re- 
gard as  not  baptized  at  all?  But  Dr.  Hudson's  Church 
admits  persons  who  make  no  profession  of  faith.  On  page 
155  of  his  book,  he  says  the  Methodist  Church,  besides 
opening  her  doors  to  adult  converts,  takes  in  also  penitent 
seekers,  and  adds,  the  following  is  the  condition  for  the  ad- 
mission of  such  persons  :  "There  is  only  one  condition  pre- 


21 


viously  required  of  those  who  desire  admission  into  the  so- 
cieties—a desire  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come,  and  to  be 
'  saved  from  their  sins.  "  So  faith  in  Christ  is  not  required 
to  become  a  member  of  the  Methodist  Church.  "  A  desire 
to  be  saved  from  their  sins  "  is  all  that  is  required.  Now, 
we  imagine  there  are  few  persons  who  would  not  come  un- 
der the  class,  who,  since  they  have  come  to  the  years  of  ac- 
countability, desire  to  be  saved .  Ask  almost  anyone,  how- 
ever wicked  and  profane,  if  he  wishes  to  be  saved  from  his 
sins,  the  answer  generally  will  be  in  the  affirmative,  and  all 
such  are  proper  subjects  for  membership  in  our  friend's 
Church.  So  if  all  the  children  in  the  world,  and  all  adults 
who  wished  to  be  saved  were  gathered  into  a  Methodist 
Church,  there  would  be  but  few  left  out  in  the  world.  No 
wonder  Dr.  H.  is  enabled  to  boast  in  his  book,  page  229 : 
1 1  While  other  Churches  have  been  gathering  a,  few  mem- 
bers through  family  training  and  cathechetical  instruction, 
Methodism  has  "  swept  them  in  by  thousands  ! "  He 
says,  "sweep  in  thousands  with  one  haul!!"  But 
Matthew  7-13-14 :  "For  wide  is  the  gate  and  broad  is  the 
way  that  leadeth  to  destruction,  and  many  there  be  which 
go  in  thereat ;  because  strait  is  the  gate  and  narrow  is  the 
way  which  leadeth  unto  life,  and  few  there  be  that  find  it. '? 
And  Dr.  Watts  puts  it  in  solemn  verse : 

"Broad  is  the  road  that  leads  to  death, 
And  thousands  walk  together  there : 
But  wisdom  showte  a  narrow  path, 
With  here  and  there  a  traveller." 

But  Dr.  Hudson  defines  "Baptism  to  be  a  sign  of  Ke- 
generation,  "  and  then  on  page  64,  he  defines  regeneration, 
to  be  the  new  faith,  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  which 
we  experience  a  change  of  heart — that  regeneration  is  the 
removal  of  the  pollution  of  sin."  Now,  how  is  it?  Peni- 
tent seekers  are  baptized  while  yet  in  their  sins.  "  Baptism 
is  a  sign  of  regeneration,  and  regeneration  is  a  sign  of  the 
new  birth— the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  which  we  expe- 
rience a  change  of  heart— that  it  is  the  removal  of  the  pol- 


22 


lution  of  sin."  This  makes  those  who  are  not  believers, 
and  infants  who  can't  believe,  fit  subjects  of  Christ's  king- 
dom, by  being  baptized  into  the  Methodist  Church.  Now, 
if  this  does  not  involve  our  friend  in  the  doctrine  of  Baptis- 
mal regeneration,  it  comes  with  bad  grace  to  charge  the 
Baptists  with  this  unscriptural  dogma.  That  is,  to  make 
the  matter  plain,  we  repeat,  if  as  Dr.  Hudsod  maintains: 
Baptism  is  the  sign  of  regeneration,  and  regeneration  is 
the  sign  of  conversion,  "  unconverted  persons  and  uncon- 
scious babes  are  baptized.  Therefore,  they  are  regenerat- 
ed, born  again  and  have  experienced  a  change  of  heart,  be- 
cause they  are  baptized  or  sprinkled  by  some  Methodist 
Minister!  But  to  remove  all  doubt  in  the  mind  of  the 
reader  on  this  point,  we  will  prove  by  their  own  authority 
that  the  only  object  of  baptizing  (sprinkling)  infants  orig- 
inally intended  to  make  them  fit  subjects  for  heaven,  and 
without  it  they  would  be  forever  lost  .  Now  for  the  proofs. 
John  Wesley  says  in  his  Doctrinal  Tracts,  page  251,  pub- 
lished and  circulated  by  the  "  Methodist  Book  Concern," 
"If  infants  are  guilty  of  original  sin,  then  they  are  proper 
subjects  of  Baptism,  seeing  in  their  ordinary'  way,  they 
cannot  be  saved  unless  this  be  washed  away  by  Baptism. 
"Audit  has  already  been  proved,"  says  he,  "that  this 
original  stain  cleaves  to  every  child  of  man.  and  that  tru- 
ly they  are  the  children  of  wrath  and  liable  to  eternal  dam- 
nation. It  is  true  the  second  Adam  has  found  a  remedy  for 
the  disease  which  came  upon  all  by  the  offence  of  the  first. 
But  the  benefit  of  this  is  to  receive  through  the  means 
which  he  hath  appointed,  through  Baptism  in  particular, 
which  is  the  ordinary  means  he  hath  appointed  for  that 
purpose,  and  to  which  God  hath  tied  us,  though  he  may 
not  have  tied  Himself.  Indeed,  when  it  cannot  be  had 
(those  yet  unborn)  the  case  is  different,  but  extraordinary 
cases  do  not  make  void  a  standing  rule.  This,  therefore, 
is  our  first  ground — infants  need  to  be  washed  from  origi- 
nal sin,  therefore  they  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  " 


23 


Again,  on  page  248,  he  says,  "By  baptism,  we  who  were 
the  children  of  wrath  are  made  the  children  of  God. "  This 
is  grounded  on  the  plain  Word  of  God :  "  Except  a  man  be 
born  of  the  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God  "  (John  111-5.)  "  By  water  as  a 
means,  the  water  of  baptism,  we  are  regenerated  or  born 
again.  "  Now,  we  have  quoted  the  above  correctly,  as  the 
words  of  the  Founder  of  Methodism,  the  father  of  the 
Methodist  Church  and  cited  the  reader  to  the  pages  of  these 
Doctrinal  Tracts  for  satisfaction,  which  have  been  endorsed 
by  the  Conferences  and  circulated  by  the  tra  velling  preach- 
ers. If  a  Baptist  should  be  guilty  of  publishing  such  lan- 
guage as  was  laid  down  by  the  father  of  Methodism  for  the 
rule  and  guide  of  faith  in  his  followers,  viz :  That  infants 
could  not  be  saved  unless  their  original  sin  be  washed 
away  by  baptism,  that  we  are  regenerated  and  born  again 
by  the  water  of  baptism,  and  that  we  who  were  the  chil- 
dren of  wrath  by  nature,"  are  made  the  children  of  God  by 
baptism;  we  say  if  a  Baptist  were  to  publish  such  objec- 
tionable doctrine,  he  would  be  an  object  of  contempt,  and 
bp  excluded  from  the  Baptist  Church. 

But  infant  baptism  and  its  evils  we  shall  discuss  in 
another  place  in  reply  to  Dr.  Hudson's  chapter  IX,  page 
(.)4,  to  which  we  ask  a  candid  perusal  of  the  reader.  For 
Dr.  H.  himself  says— page  97:  "We  must  believe  then 
either  the  horrid  doctrine  of  infant  damnation  or  the  doc- 
trine of  infant  baptism!"  When  the  reader  reaches  this 
'  hapter  we  invite  him  to  pause  and  wonder,  and  then  read 
with  care. 

Hut  to  return.  We  were  speaking  of  the  marks  of  what 
a  true  Gospel  Church  was  as  taught  in  the  Scriptures.  We 
ha  ve  found  it  to  be  an  independent  local  assembly  compos- 
ed of  voluntary  believers  in  Christ  and  who  have  been  bap- 
tized upon  a  profession  of  their  faith,  and  we  shall  show 
before  we  get  through  that  immersion  alone  is  baptism,  - 
and  that  sprinkling  and  pouring  used  as  an  ordinance  had 


24 


their  origin  with  those  who  "changed  the  ordinances  of 
Christ  to  suit  the  convenience  of  man,"  and  is  a  fragment 
of  Popery— that  man  of  sin  and  son  of  perdition,  who  pros- 
tituted the  Holy  Scriptures  to  the  service  of  the  devil. 
This  we  will  show  both  from  the  true  meaning  of  the  word 
of  Christ  as  well  as  from  most  of  the  leading  historians  of 
the  world,  ancient  and  modern,  sacred  and  profane.  We 
.o'bject  to  the  Methodist  as  being  the  true  Church  of  Christ  . 
Because,  1st.  It  is  not  an  independent  body — it  is  ruled  by 
Bishops.  2nd.  Its  laws  are  made  first  by  Conferences  and 
Bishops .  Its  laws  are  executed ,  by  its  preachers .  The  peo- 
ple have  no  voice  in  making  the  laws  or  their  execution. 
The  Bishop  is  elected  by  the  preachers.  The  society  or 
Church  must  receive  the  preacher  imposed  upon  them  by 
the  Bishop,  or  have  none  at  all. 

All  power  is  in  the  hands  of  Bishops,  Conferences  or 
preachers,  and  none  in  the  Churches  where  Christ  and  His 
Apostles  placed  it.  Again,  the  Methodist  Church  is  com- 
posed in  part  of  unconverted  seekers  and  infants,  while  the 
Gospel  Church  is  composed  of  professed  believers  only. 
Again  it  is  subject  to  the  preachers — it  cannot  choose  its 
own  pastors — it  is  dependent  for  its  very  existence  as  a 
Church,  wrhile  a  Gospel  Church  recognizes  no  authority 
above  it  but  Christ.  Again,  the  Methodist  Church  is  sub- 
ject to  the  laws  of  Conferences  even  as  to  the  rights  of  its 
own  members,  and  some  of  its  members  are  brought  in  by 
the  authority  of  parents,  having  no  will  of  their  own,  while 
the  Church  of  Christ  acknowledges  no  law-givers  except 
those  found  in  the  Testament,  and  its  members  become 
such  by  their  voluntary  act  alone.  Again,  the  Methodist 
Church  holds  and  teaches  salvation  by  faith,  but  partially 
nullifies  this  good  doctrine  by  teaching  baptismal  regen- 
eration as  we  have  clearly  shown.  It  was  conceived  and 
established  by  Mr.  Wesley  and  other  men  and  began  in 
1 784  by  the  authority  of  two  Bishops  and  sixty  preachers 
while  a,  true  Gospel  Church  holds  its  articles  of  faith  upon 


25 


the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Apostles,  and  was  found- 
ed by  Christ  more  than  eighteen  hundred  years  ago  and 
has  continued  down  to  the  present  time— "The  gates  of 
hell  shall  never  prevail  against  it. ' ' 

So  we  plainly  see,  so  far  as  the  spiritual  kingdom  is 
concerned,  that  Christ  is  the  foundation  of  the  Christian's 
hope  and  faith.  When  it  comes  to  the  setting  up  of  the 
Gospel  Church,  there  we  must  needs  have  a  declaration  of 
principles  and  fundamental  truths  must  constitue  the 
foundation  of  Christ's  Church,  and  these  glorious  truths 
he  has  pointed  out  as  a  foundation  rock  upon  which  he 
says  he  will  build  his  Church.  He  is  the  head  of  His  Church 
in  all  things.  He  has  not  resigned  the  headship  to  anoth- 
er, and  from  thence  transmitted  it  down  to  successive  gen- 
erations, but  He  is  still  the  head ;  for  He  is  to-day  a  living, 
present  Savior.  We  have  the  blessed  assurance  that  the 
clumsy  and  contaminated  hands  of  sinful  men  shall  not 
mar  the  beauty  of  the  building  of  God.  The  Church  is  com- 
posed, not  of  organized  bodies  of  men,  holding  their  au- 
thority in  their  hands  which  they  received  from  men  writ- 
ten on  scrolls  of  paper,  not  from  communicants  of  faith 
that  is  altered  and  changed  by  the  councils  of  Bishops,  or 
Cardinals,  or  Conferences  that  meet  to  make  new  laws  to 
meet  new  necessities— not  a  body  of  professors  who  believe 
in  the  traditions  of  men  and  know  no  higher  authority,  and 
believe  the  Bible  secondary  to  the  edicts  of  Bishops  and 
Conferences — but  a  remnant  according  the  election  of  grace, 
who  have  a  white  stone  given  them  and  in  the  stone  a  new 
name  written  which  no  man  knoweth  saving  he  that  re- 
ceiveth  it.  A  great  multitude  which  no  man  can  number, 
that  have  come  out  of  great  tribulation,  out  of  every  na- 
tion, kindred  and  tongue,  and  people  on  earth — the  com- 
municants of  the  one  unchangeable  faith  that  was  once  de- 
livered to  the  saints. 

Though  the  children  may  be  scattered  and  their  houses 
of  worship  burned,  their  j)astors  pinioned  to  the  stake  and 


1 


26 

tortured  with  fagot  or  beheaded  and  stoned,  or  imprisoned 
to  languish  and  pine  away  in  dark  and  filthy  dungeons, 
yet  truth  will  prevail.  The  blood  of  the  martyrs  is  the 
seed  of  the  Church  and  the  Church  will  survive  and  finally 
triumph  over  all,  for  "  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail 
against  it,"  the  foundation  of  God  standeth  sure  forever. 
ktIn  whom  also  we  have  obtained  an  inheritance  being  -pre- 
destinated according  to  the  purpose  of  Him  who  worketh 
all  things  after  the  counsel  of  His  own  will  that  we  should 
be  to  the  praise  of  His  glory."'  0,  tha/fc  the  Church  which 
He  established  1800  years  ago  "  might  look  forth  as  the 
morning,  fair  as  the  moon,  clear  as  the  sun  and  terrible  as 
an  army  with  banners,"  and  that  all  religionists  would  be 
able  to  see  the  errors  of  their  leaders  and  take  the  Bible  as 
their  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice ! 

But  to  close  this  chapter  on  the  definition  of  the  Church 
we  observe  that  the  Methodist  Church,  though  of  recent 
origin,  has  changed  its  base  line  several  different  times 
since  it  was  organized.  It  is  acknowledged  their  first 
Church  consisted  of  the  preachers  and  a  pair  of  bishops. 
And  so  it  was  decided  in  the  great  Methodist  law  suit  that 
•'the  bishops  and  the  travelling  preachers  are  now  the 
Church.  "  W  What  has  before  been  the  rule  of  the  societies, 
now  became  the  rules  of  the  Church.  What  were  before  the 
terms  of  admission  into  the  societies,  became  the  terms  of 
admission  into  the  Church.  "  "  As  it  has  been  only  needful 
for  one  to  profess  a  desire  of  salvation  to  constitute  the  so- 
ciety, so  this  was  all  that  was  needful  to  come  into  the 
Church.  "  But  while  the  laws  of  Christ's  Church  were  to  re- 
main "steadfast  and  immovable,  those  of  the  Methodist 
have  already  undergone  many  and  important  changes. 
For  instance,  in  regard  to  slavery  in  the  United  States : 
many  years  ago,  to  own  slaves  was  made  a  bar  of  fellow- 
ship and  communion  among  its  own  members.  It  was 
the  business  of  the  circuit  preacher  to  take  with  him  his 
blank-book  and  take  down  the  names  and  ages  of  all  the 


27 

slaves  belonging  to  any  of  their  members  with  a  view  of  ex- 
pelling all  snch  masters  who  did  not  free  their  slaves  at  a 
certain  time  fixed  by  the  Conference,  and  though  their  rules 
would  invite  members  of  other  denominations,  who  owned 
slaves,  to  the  communion  table  with  them,  yet  positively 
excluded  their  own  members  from  such  privileges  who  •  re- 
fused to  free  their  slaves  as  required  by  the  Discipline. 

The  writer  well  remembers  a  striking  case  of  this  kind 
when  a,  pious  and  very  useful  minister  of  the  Methodist 
Church  withdrew  his  name  from  among  them  rather  than 
submit  to  such  tyranny.  It  is  a  curiosity  to  go  back  and 
read  over  the  rules  and  changes  made  from  time  to  time  in 
their  Discipline,  made  by  men  who  make  no  pretension  to 
divine  authority,  but  bind  its  members  to  strict  obser- 
vance. According  to  the  early  editions  of  the  Methodist 
Discipline,  no  man,  however  pious  and  exalted  in  society, 
however  useful  and  beloved  among  his  fellows,  if  he  owned 
slaves  and  did  not  set  them  free,  as  prescribed  in  the  Dis- 
cipline, should  be  expelled  from  the  Church.  This  law  was 
at  a  later  day  repealed.  Still  the  Discipline,  after  under- 
going many  and  radical  changes,  is  yet  the  rule  and  guide 
of  faith  and  practice  of  Methodists.  The  Bible  alone  fur- 
nishes all  articles  of  faith  for  a  true  Gospel  Church  and  to 
it  the  Baptists  as  a  body  of  Christians,  have  rigidly  adher- 
ed for  1800  years,  through  persecution,  suffering  and 
death. 

Now,  reader,  if  you  will  turn  to  the  last  chapter  of  this 
little  work,  you  will  find  a  brief  outline  of  the  rise  and 
progress  of  the  Baptists,  from  which  you  will  be  able  to 
form  an  opinion  as  to  Dr.  Hudson's  knowledge  of  history 
in  his  accounting  Roger  WiHiains  the  founder  of  the  Bap- 
tist Church.  You  will  see  how  faithful  historians  record 
how  thousands  of  Baptists,  or  those  holding  similar  doc- 
trines, but  existing  in  different  ages  under  different  names, 
have  died  in  behalf  of  soul-liberty— have  died  as  "witnesses 
of  Jesus,"  because  they  have  strenuously  maintained  and 


28 

contended  "for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  Saints,"  and 
for  the  ordinances  as  they  were  committed  to  the  Church 
by  its  Great  Head.  Yon  will  see  how  the  tree  of  religious 
and  civil  liberty  was  watered  by  the  precious  blood  of  mar- 
tyrs. Living  as  we  do  in  times  when  the  fruit  of  this  tree 
is  fed  upon  by  so  many  millions  of  the  hum  an  race,  Ave  per- 
haps fail  in  appreciating  the  fact  that  this  constitutes  the 
noble  legacy  which  the  Baptists  of  all  ages  have  bequeath- 
ed to  living  generations  and  to  generations  yet  unborn, 
and  for  which,  with  martyr  devotion,  they  have  struggled 
and  suffered,  and  agonized  and  died  from  the  beginning 
of  the  Christian  era.  "Not  only  have  Baptists  been  sub- 
jected to  the  exquisite  tortures  which  a  hellish  and  cun- 
ning ingenuity  could  devise,  but  they  have  been  always  the 
objects  at  which  learning  and  buffoonery  have  aimed  their 
poisoned  darts."  Other  Christian  denominations  have 
done  their  share  x>f  this  small  work  in  ridiculing  and  de- 
faming this  set  of  "narrow-hearted  bigots."  But  howev- 
er reluctant  small  minds  and  narrow  souls  may  be  to  con- 
fess these  truths,  it  is  pleasant  to  know  there  are  persons 
of  capacious  intellects,  of  exalted  nature,  and  large,  lib- 
eral-hearted views,  who  cordially  acknowledge  the  great 
worth  of  the  Baptist  denomination.  Hear  what  Thomas 
Chalmers,  the  great  Scotch  Presbyterian,  and  eminent 
scholar,  says :  "  Let  it  never  be  forgotten  of  the  Baptists, 
that  they  form  the  denomination  of  Fuller,  and  Cary,  and 
Kyland,  and  Hall,  and  Foster;  that  they  originated  the 
first  of  all  Missionary  enterprises;  that  they  have  enriched 
the  Christian  literature  of  our  country  with  an  authorship 
of  the  most  exalted  piety,  as  well  as  the  first  talent,  and 
the  first  eloquence;  that  they  have  waged  a  noble  war  with 
the  hydra,  of  Antinomianism,  that  perhaps  there  is  not  a 
more  intellectual  community  of  ministers,  who  have  to 
their  number  put  forth  a  greater  amount  of  mental  power 
and  mental  ability  in  the  defence  and  illustration  of  our 
common  faith,  and  what  is  still  better  than  all  the  tri- 


29 


umphs  of  genius  and  understanding,  who  by  their  zeal  and 
fidelity  and  pastoral  labor  among  the  congregations 
which  they  have  reared,  have  done  more  to  swell  the  lists 
of  genuine  Discipleship  in  all  the  walks  of  private  society, 
and  thus  to  uphold  and  extend  the  living  Christianity  of 
our  nation.''  So  says  Dr.  Chalmers,  one  of  the  greatest 
men  of  England  and  a  Presbyterian.  Dr.  Baird,  another 
very  distinguished  Presbyterian  divine,  says :  "The  Bap- 
tists comprehend  a  body  of  men,  who  in  point  of  talents, 
learning  and  eloquence,  as  well  as  devoted  piety,  have  no 
superiors  in  the  country."  But  we  did  not  intend  to  detain 
the  reader  on  this  subject,  which  he  will  find  more  fully 
stated  in  the  conclusion  of  this  little  volume. 


30 

CHAPTER  II. 


Having  briefly  stated  our  views  of  what  constitutes  a 
true  Gospel  Church  together  with  objections  to  our  friend's 
ideas  of  it,  we  come  now  to  consider  his  Chapter  VII,  page 
79,  "  Mode  of  Baptism." 

He  says  "  We  conclude  then  that  water  applied  in  the 
name  of  the  Trinity  by  a,  Gospel  minister  to  a  proper  can- 
date  is  Christian  baptism."  "Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all 
nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of 
the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  "It  will  be  seen,  "  says 
Dr.  H.,  "from  the  above  definition,  that  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism is  not  one  of  its  essential  elements ;  that  all  the  essen- 
tials of  baptism .  will  be  preserved  when  administered  by 
the  mode  of  pouring,  sprinkling,  or  immersion.  Therefore 
the  Methodist  Church  holds  that  the  three  modes  are 
equally  valid,  but  that  the  weight  of  evidence  is  in  favor 
of  pouring  and  sprinkling.  Pouring  and  sprinkling  are 
really  only  one  mode,  they  being  alike  as  to  mode,  the  dif- 
ference being  the  freer  use  of  water  in  pouring.  The  terms 
are  borrowed  from  the  Bible."  "I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit, 
and  then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you." 

Now, Dr.  H.  says,there  are  three  modes  of  baptism, "'pour- 
ing, sprinkling  and  immersion,''  and  that  the  "Methodist 
Church  holds  that  these  modes  are  equally  A^alid.  "  Is  it 
not  strange,  then,  that  these  three  modes  being  equally  val- 
id, Dr.  Hudson  should  consume  so  large  a  portion  of 
his  book  in  attempting  to  prove  that  immersion  is  no- 
where taught  in  the  Scriptures,  nay  more,  that  it  is  a  prac- 
tice "repulsive  to  the  feelings,  dangerous  to  the  health  and 
offensive  to  delicacy ! !  "  What  confidence  would  a  man  of 
the  world  have  in  a  preacher  of  the  Gospel,  urging  him  to 
become  a  Christian,  when  he  sees  or  hears  him  thus  ridicul- 
ing one  of  God's  most  holy  ordinances,  admitting  it  to  be 
equally  valid,  and  in  the  same  breath  denouncing  the  same 
to  be  "indecent"  and  without  "scriptural  authority!"  But 


31 

• 

lie  says  there  are  three  modes,  while  the  inspired  Apostle 
says  to  the  Church  at  Ephesus,  "  One  Lord,  one  faith,  one 
baptism.  "  Who  is  likely  to  be  correct,  Dr.  Hudson  or  St. 
Paul?  Dr.  H.  says,  "  We  conclude  that  water  applied  in 
the  name  of  the  Trinity  by  a  Gospel  minister  to  a  proper 
candidate  is  Christian  baptism.  " 

Xow,  we  would  ask  where  he  gets  such  authority  that 
Christian  baptism  is  water  applied  to  the  subject?  Cer- 
tainly not  in  the  Scriptures,  if  so  he  would  not  have  failed 
to  refer  his  readers  to  the  text.  There  is  no  such  intima- 
tion in  the  Avord  of  God,  that  Christian  baptism  is  " :  water 
applied  to  the  candidate.  "  This  kind  of  baptism,  we  shall 
show,  is  of  human  invention.  The  Savior  Himself  was  &p- 
jjlied  to  the  water  and  not  the  water  to  Him.  John  bap- 
tized (immersed)  Jesus  in  the  river — in  the  water — and'kHe 
came  up  straightway  out  of  the  water" — no  application  of 
water  here  to  the  candidate,  but  the  candidate  was  dipped 
or  immersed  in  the  water.  Philip  led  the  Eunuch  down  in- 
to the  water  and  there  baptized  (immersed)  him,  and  then 
both  came  up  out  of  the  water,  Acts  8.  Here,  again,  the 
candidate  was  applied  to  the  water  and  not  the  water  to 
the  subject. 

But  Dr.  H.  says  "  the  terms  pouring  and  sprinkling  are 
terms  borrowed  from  the  Bible,  "  and  then  quotes  as  fol- 
lows: "I  will  pour  out  my  spirit  and  then  I  will  sprinkle 
clean  water  upon  you.  f  The  first  clause  of  the  above  sen- 
tence is  found  in  Isaiah,  44-3,  and  the  latter  clause  in  Ezeki- 
el,  36-25.  Now  our  author  must  be  hard  pressed  indeed 
to  find  authority  in  the  Bible  for  pouring  or  sprinkling  as 
a  mode  of  Christian  baptism.  He  first  goes  a  way  into  the 
( lid  'Testament  and  finds  where  the  Prophet  Isaiah  uses 
the  word  jjour,  having  no  reference  whatever  to  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism  and  then  takes  a  part  of  the  3rd  Averse  of 
the  44th  chapter  and  sticks  it  on  to  a  part  of  Ezekiel  3(>th 
chapter,  25th  verse,  and  makes  up  his  quotation,  "I  will 
pour  out  my  spirit,  and  then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water 


32 


upon  you.  "  What  subterfuge!  Who  that desires  to  know 
the  truth  and  his  duty  in  obeying  the  ordinance  of  baptism 
would  ever  think  of  going  back  to  the  old  prophets  to  learn 
what  it  was !  An  institution  which  Christ  set  up  Himself 
set  the  example,  and  as  clearly  taught  his  disciples,  both  by 
precept  as  well  as  example  in  language  and  symbols  so 
plain  that  for  hundreds  of  years  there  was  not  even  the 
shadow  of  doubt  what  was  the  true  and  only  form.  But 
let  us  go  back  to  Isaiah  and  read  the  whole  passage,  verse  3d : 
"  For  I  will  pour  water  upon  him  that  is  thirsty,  and  floods 
upon  the  dry  ground ;  I  will  pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed 
and  my  blessings  upon  thine  offspring.  V  Then  Ezekiel 
36-25,  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye 
shall  be  clean ;  from  all  your  nlthiness,  and  from  all  your 
idols  will  I  cleanse  you.  "  Now  the  man  that  can  see  Chris- 
tian baptism  in  the  above  language  is  capable  of  believing 
that  Jonah  swallowed  the  whale!  Besides  the  instance 
above  mentioned  there  are  but  two  others  where  the  sprink- 
ling of  water  is  used  in  the  whole  Bible.  In  Numbers,  8th 
and  19th  chapters,  the  same  figure  is  expressed  in  refer- 
ence to  purification  and  cleansing  "from  filthiness,  from 
idols,  "  &c,  just  as  it  is  in  Ezekiel.  We  are  rather  at  a  loss 
to  know  Avhy  our  friend  did  not  seize  on  to  these  other  two 
texts  to  sustain  his  "lost  cause."  He  surely  must  have 
failed  to  find  them  or  they  would  have  been  brought  out 
as  proof  texts  that  sprinkling  was  Christian  baptism ;  tha  t 
John  either  sprinkled  or  poured  the  Savior  in  the  river  Jor- 
dan ;  that  Phillip  sprinkled  or  poured  the  Eunuch  in  the 
water  and  that  John  was  sprinkling  or  pouring  in  Enon, 
because  there  was  much  water  there. 

But  as  Dr.  H.  insists  that  in  baptism  water  is  applied 
to  the  subject  and  not  the  subject  to  the  water,  and  that 
there  is  no  difference  in  the  modes  of  pouring  and  sprink- 
ling except  the  former  requires  a  little  more  water.  Now 
the  writer  is  curious  to  know  how  much  water  is  required 
to  constitute  baptism  by  his  favorite  modes?   How  many 


33 

drops  to  make  a  sprinkle,  and  what  kind  of  a  vessel  is  nec- 
essary out  of  which  to  pour  the  water.  Surely  as  baptism 
is  a  positive  institution,  our  friend  can  read  from  the  Scrip- 
ture how  the  Apostles  acted  in  this  matter.  Again,  we 
would  inquire  what  part  of  the  body  is  the  wa  ter  to  be  aip- 
plied  to  make  valid  baptism?  Must  it  be  on  the  head  in 
front  or  on  the  back?  Or  the  face?  Or  would  not  a  little 
on  the  hands  or  indeed  the  feet  be  the  proper  locality. 
For  we  read  of  a  sect  in  ancient  times  who  washed  their 
feet  and  called  it  baptism  and  appealed  to  John  XIII-10 
in  justification  of  their  conduct.  Surely  our  friend  has 
some  preference  on  what  part  of  the  body  the  water  shall 
fall  when  it  is  sprinkled  or  poured.  He  says  baptism  has 
taken  the  place  of  circumcision,  and  every  one  knows  that 
unless  circumcision  was  performed  precisely  according  to 
the  Jewish  law— on  the  precise  locality  of  the  body  given  in 
the  command,  it  would  not  answer;  it  would  not  be  receiv- 
ed as  circumcision  at  all.  So  if  baptism  has  taken  its  place, 
as  the  strict  letter  of  the  law  was  to  be  followed  in  the  one 
case,  so  it  seems  to  us  it  should  not  be  neglected  in  the  other. 
Baptism  being  a  positive  institution  as  well  as  those  an- 
cient rites,  what  reason  can  our  opponents  assign  for  not 
specifying  what  particular  part  of  the  body  the  water  is  to 
be  applied  ? 

But  on  the  same  page  (80)  of  his  book,  Dr.  Hudson 
takes  hold  of  the  oft-repeated  Pedo-Baptist  grounds,  (and 
which  have  been  as  often  thoroughly  exploded)  of  attempt- 
ing to  prove  baptism  by  pouring  as  the  mode,  because  the 
Scriptures  speak  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  being  poured  out. 
But  few,  if  any,  of  the  learned  men  of  the  Pedo-Baptist 
denomination,  however,  maintain  such  a  weak  and  unten- 
able position.  For  it  is  clear  to  be  seen  that  to  make  Holy 
Ghost  baptism  and  water  baptism  synonymous  is  to  ma- 
terialize the  Holy  Spirit.  Here  are  his  texts :  "  The  Holy 
Ghost  fell  on  all  them  that  heard,"  and  "on  the  Gentiles 
also  was  poured  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."— Acts  10, 


84 


44-47,  and  he  says:  "Then  Peter  baptized  those  on 
whom  the  Holy  Spirit  was  poured  out."  "  Now/'  he  adds, 
"as  the  Holy  Spirit  was  poured  upon  the  people,  it  is  al- 
most certain  that  Peter  poured  water  upon  them  as  the 
most  fitting  mode  of  baptism."  The  Dr.  would  have  us 
believe  that  Peter  saw7  with  his  natural  eyes  the  Holy  Spirit 
pouring  down  upon  the  people,  coming  down  in  a  stream 
as  you  see  water  poured  out  of  a  pitcher,  and  therefore 
Peter  in  like  manner  took  Avater  and  poured  it  upon  the 
people !  But  he  says  the  word  baptism  means  to  pour  or 
a  pouring.  Now  substitute  the  word  poured  in  lieu  of  the 
word  baptized  in  the  above  sentence  and  see  how  it  reads  : 
"  Peter  poured  those  on  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  was  poured 
out."  How  nonsensical !  Now  take  the  true  translation 
1  of  the  word  baptized  and  see  how  plain  and  natural.  "Pe- 
ter immersed  those  on  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  was  poured 
out  / '  But  hear  what  that  great  and  good  man,  Dr.  Barnes, 
says  of  this  Holy  Ghost  baptism  in  his  notes  on  the  10th 
chapter  of  Matthew.  He  explains  it  thus :  "Are  you  able 
to  be  plunged  deep  in  afflictions  and  to  have  sorrows  cover 
you  like  water  and  to  be  sunk  beneath  calamities  as  a 
flood?  Now  in  this  there  is  no  literal  immersion,  but  the 
sorrow  is  represented  as  covering  and  swallowing  up  the 
mind  as  water  does  the  body  in  the  act  of  baptism.  It  is  a 
metaphorical  but  not  a  real  baptism.  So  in  the  case  be- 
fore us.  As  Christ  had  told  James  ,  and  John  that  they 
should  be  immersed  or  overwhelmed  by  suffering  and  sor- 
row, so  now  he  tells  all  the  disciples  that  they  shall  in  a 
few  days  be  immersed  or  overwhelmed 'by  the  influences  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  That  these  influences  cover,  overpower 
and  swallow  up  their  minds  as  the  water  in  baptism  did 
their  bodies.  It  is  no  more  a  literal  baptism  than  the  ba  p- 
tism of  suffering  in  Matthew.  It  is  a  metaphor,  and  the 
allusion  is  not  to  the  act  done  in  baptism,  so  much  as  to 
the  result— that  is  the  swallowing  up  and  overwhelming  of 
their  minds  by  the  flood  of  life,  and  light  and  joy,  and 


heavenly  influence  which  that  day  came  (poured)  upon 
their  souls.  "  This  is  what  Dr.  Barnes  says  who  was  one  of 
the  great  lights  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  celebrated  for 
his  learning  as  well  as  his  devotion  to  his  Master.  Com- 
pare his  purely  Scriptural  comments  with  those  of  our 
friend.  And  see  how  speedily  the  latter \s  theories  vanish 
like  the  mists  of  the  morning  before  the  brilliant  rays  of 
the  rising  sun . 

On  his  next  page  (81)  Dr.  H.  quotes  Dr.  Pope,  a  Wes- 
leyan  minister  of  England,  thus.  "There  are  many  consid- 
erations which  lead  us  to  regard  affusion  or  sprinkling 
as  the  ordained  rite.  The  Catholic  design  of  the  Gospe] 
suggests  that  the  simplest  and  most  universally  practica- 
ble ordinance  would  be  a  ppointed .  Again ,  the  most  impor- 
tant realities  of  which  baptism  is  only  the  sign  are  such  as 
sprinkling  or  affusion  indicates.  The  blood  of  atonement 
was  sprinkled  on  the  people  and  on  the  mercy  seat,  and 
the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost  are  generally  illustrated  by  the 
pouring  of  water  and  the  anointing.  ''  Now  it  seems  like  a 
pity  to  spoil  this  ingenious  fortification,  this  the  al- 
most forlorn  hope  of  our  opponents  to  maintain  their  fa- 
vorite mode  of  baptism.  But  as  it  has  often  been  demol-  . 
ished  and  they  continue  to  set  it  up  again,  it  must  contin- 
ue to  be  pulled  down, 'until  our  Lord  sees  fit  it  shall  no 
more  be  held  up  as  a  Christian  ordinance.  If  our  Saviour 
wished  it  to  be  so,  he  certainly  would  have  appointed  it  .  But 
lie  seems  to  have  preferred  immersion  in  water;  and  this, 
while  it  may  signify  the  cleansing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  yet 
the  design  is  better  signified  in  our  death  and  burial  to  sin, 
and  our  living  again  to  righteousness  ;  and  it  is  thus  that 
Paul  explains  it  when  he  says,  u  We  are  buried  with  him  by 
baptism  into  death,  that  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the 
dead  so  we  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.'*  It  serves  also 
to  remind  us  of  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  and 
prefigures  also  our  own  coming  death,  burial  and  resurrec- 
tion.. As  the  other  ordinance  (the  Lord's  Supper)  repre- 


sents  the  broken  body  and  shed  blood  of  our  Saviour,  so 
baptism  is  designed  to  represent  His  burial  and  resurrec- 
tion. Pouring  and  sprinkling  can't  do  this ;  it  may  suit  the 
machinations  of  man ;  it  may  as  Dr.  H.  says,  be  "more  sim- 
ple, more  practicable,"  but  Christ  did  not  so  command  and 
the  Apostles  did  not  so  teach,  nor  did  the  Disciples  ever 
practice  it  .  Now  let  us  pause  here,  and  offset  the  Dr.  \s  last 
quotation  by  giving  others  in  opposition  thereto  and  then 
let  the  reader  form  his  opinion  as  to  the  best  authority. 

Dr.  James  McKnight,  an  eminent  Presbyterian  divine, 
for  20  years  the  Moderator  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  England,  says :  "  Jesus  submitted 
to  be  baptized;  that  is  to  be  put  under  the  water  and  taken 
out  again  by  John. " 

Dr.  Chalmers,  to  whom  we  have  heretofore  alluded, 
says,  "The  meaning  of  the  word  baptism  is  immersion. " 
Martin  Luther  says  expressly:  "Immersion  was  without 
doubt  instituted  by  Christ."  John  Calvin,  the  founder  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  distinctly  states  the  word  baptize 
signifies  to  immerse,  and  the  right  of  immersion  was  prac- 
ticed by  the  ancient  Church. "    (See  Institutes.) 

Dr.  Geo.  Campbell,  another  standard  author  and  a 
Presbyterian,  says,  in  his  notes  on-  the  four  Gospels,  vol- 
ume 2,  page  20:  "The  word  baptize,  both  in  sacred  and 
classical  authors,  signifies  to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  immerse, 
and  is  always  construed  suitably  to  this  meaning.  " 

Dr.  Neander,  the  great  and  learned  Church  historian, 
on  page  197,  says,  "Baptism  for  the  first  three  centuries 
after  Christ  was  administered  by  immersion . ' '  Lord  Chan- 
cellor King  wrote  a  book  called  the  Primitive  Church  and 
published  by  the  Methodists  in  1841,  says,  on  page  218 : 
"  As  for  the  quantity  of  water  employed  in  baptism,  to  me 
it  seems  evident  that  their  custom  was  to  dip  or  immerse 
the  whole  body  under  water."  The  exception,  says  he, 
was  in  the  case  of  sick  persons.  The  ordination  of  Nova- 
tian  was  opposed  by  all  the  clergy  and  all  the  laity,  be- 


37 


cause  of  clinic  perfusion, "  being  sick  he  had  water  poured 
over  him  in  bed,  and  for  this  reason  he  was  rejected  on  the 
ground  that  he  had  not  been  baptized,  but  only  poured 
upon.   This  was  in  the  third  century. 

'  Dr.  Whitby,  who  is  the  author  of  more  than  40  learned 
works,  says :  "Immersion  being  religiously  observed  by  all 
Christians  for  13  centuries,  and  the  change  into  sprinkling, 
even  without  allowance  of  the  author,"  &c.  (See his  notes 
on  Romans,  6—4.) 

Bishop  Bossuet  says:  "We  are  able  to  make  it  ap- 
pear by  the  acts  of  councils  and  by  ancient  rituals  that  for 
thirteen  hundred  years  baptism  by  immerson  was  admin- 
istered throughout  the  whole  Church." 

Dr.  Mosheim,  the  celebrated  German  historian,  says : 
"  The  Sacrament  of  Baptism  was  administered  in  the  first 
century  by  the  immersion  of  the  whole  body."  (See  vol- 
ume 1st,  page  126,  Methodist  Edition.)  Again:  "In  the 
second  century  the  persons  baptized  were  immersed  under 
water."    (  Vol.  2,  page  206.) 

Dr.  Adam  Clark,  on  Rom.  6-4:  "It  is  probable  that 
the  Apostle  here  alludes  to  the  mode  of  administering  bap- 
tism by  immersion,  the  whole  body  being  put  under  wa- 
ter."   ( Dr.  Clark  is  a  favorite  author  with  Methodists.) 

Bishop  Taylor :  "  The  custom  of  the  ancient  Churches 
was  not  to  sprinkle,  but  immersion ;  in  pursuance  of  the 
sense  of  the  wrord,  in  the  commandment,  and  in  the  exam- 
ple of  our  blessed  Savior."   ( Vol.  1,  199.) 

But  hear  what  John  Wesley  says,  the  father  of  our 
friend's  Church,  commenting  on  Rom.  6  and  4:  "The  allu- 
sion is  to  the  ancient  manner  of  baptising  by  immersion." 
In  his  journal,  Vol.  3,  page  20,  he  relates  the  circumstance 
of  Mary  Welch,  aged  eleven  days,  was  baptized  according 
to  the  custom  of  the  ancient  Church  by  immersion.  Again 
Wesley  on  page  24  of  his  journal,  gives  us  the  following 
narrative :  "I  was  asked  to  baptize  a  child  of  Mr.  Parker's, , 
second  bailiff  of  Savannah,  but  Mrs.  Parker  told  me  that 


38 


neither  she  nor  Mr.  Parker  will  consent  to  its  being  dipped. 
I  answered,  'if  you  will  certify  to  the  child's  being  weakly  it 
will  suffice,  the  Rubric  says,  to  pour  water  upon  it.'  She 
replied,  'Nay,  the  child  is  not  weak,  but  I  am  resolved  the 
child  shall  not  be  dipped.'  This  argument  I  could  not 
confute,  so  I  went  home  and  the  child  was  baptized  by  an- 
other.1 ■  .  This  shows  Mr.  Wesley's  practice  as  well  as  belief 
at  that  time. 

The  above  entry  in  his  journal  is  dated  May  5,  1730. 
He  followed  or  adhered  to  the  ''Rubric,''  which  was  then 
the  formula  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  it 'seems  requir- 
ed even  infants  to  be  immersed.  But  we  find  that  this 
wonderful  man  of  God  changed  his  views,  and  published  in 
the  year  1756—20  years  after  the  above  narration— a 
treatise  on  baptism  and  contended  for  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling as  the  more  Scriptural  mode  of  baptism.  Strange  in- 
consistency of  this  good  man!  But  we  will  proceed  with 
our  testimony  of  many  writers  who  lived  at  different  times 
and  in  different  countries  of  all  the  different  denominations. 
The  falsehood  of  their  united  testimony  is  not  to  be  con- 
ceived. The  argument  which  this  produces  furnishes  for 
the  truth  of  immersion  as  the  only  primitive  and  Apostolic 
mode,  has,  in  strength  and  conclusiveness,  no  parallel  in 
the  whole  compass  of  ancient  literature.  All  antiquity 
does  not  afford  a  vestige,  public  or  private,  of  any  con- 
tradictory testimony.  Though  opposition  has  been  most 
violent,  though  ridicule,  defamation  and  persecution,  were, 
and  are  yet  employed  and  displayed  against  this  institu- 
tion and  its  adherents,  no  one  presumed  to  deny  the  facts. 
What  but  truth  almighty  could  have  stood  such  an  ordeal, 
or  commanded:  such  acquiescence!  The  Pope  issued  his 
edicts  against  it  and  those  who  practiced  it  were  nailed  to 
the  stake  and  their  bodies  burned  to  a  shes.  It  yet  remains 
the  ever-living  monument  of  the  burial  and  resurrection  of 
our  precious  Redeemer ! 

Rev.  O.  Fisher,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Society,  in  a 


39 


debate  with  G.  G.  Baggerly,  at  Jarrissa,  Texas,  August 
28,  1853,  said:*  '  "The  days  of  Baptists  are  well  nigh  num- 
bered, for  all  the  'Pedo-Baptist  denominations  are  deter- 
mined to  push  this  vexed  question  until  the  wave  of  im- 
mersion shall  be  stayed."  (Pedo-Baptist  immersions  by 
Rev.  G.  W.  Purifoy,)who  adds:  "How  do  '  the  Pedo-Bap- 
tist dettominartlons'  expect  to  stop  'the  wave  of  immersion,' 
when  'in  condescension  to  weak  consciences'  they  immerse? 
Pedo-Baptistshave  already  tried  persecution,  confiscation, 
banishment,  fines,  imprisonment,  stripes,  fire,  sword,  ridi- 
cule, sophistry,  the  inquisition,  scoffs,  arguments,  &c. 
Still  'the  wave  of  immersion '  has  rolled  on,  and  is  rising 
higher  and  higher,  stronger,  broader  and  deeper,  and  Mil 
eventually  immerse  the  whole  Pedo-Baptist  world,  for  if 
has  already  sprung  a  leak  in  every  branch  of  'the  Pedo- 
Baptist  denomillations,  who  are  determined  to  stop  'the 
wave  of  immersion. '  " 

William  Penn,  a  Quaker,  and  founder*of  Pennsylvania, 
declared,  "There  is  not  one  text  of  Scripture  to  prove  that 
sprinkling  in  the  face  was  water  baptism,  or  that  children 
were  subjects  of  water  baptism  in  the  first  times."  Here  is 
high  authority  of  a  distinguished  Roman  Catholic,  Arch- 
bishop Cullen,  who  said  "immersion  was  certainly  only  prac- 
ticed by  the  primitive  Church ;  that  it  was  changed  by  the 
authority  of  the  Church,  and  but  for  this  power  vested  in 
the  Church,  the  ordinance  could  not  have  been  clitwgvd. 
Therefore,  in  the  matter  of  baptism,  the  various  sects  are 
dependent  upon  and  derive  their  authority  from  us  for  tin1 
chnngv  of  the  ordinance  from  immersion  to  pouring  and 
sprinkling. ' '  Again  he  says :  "The  Baptists  alone  of  all  the 
sects  are  consistent.  Denying  the  authority  of  tradition  and 
the  power  tested* iii •  the  Church  of  bin ding  a&d  loosing,  they 
adhere  strictly  to  the  teachings  of  Christ  and  the  letter  of 
the  New  Testament. "  He  further  says  that  the  "Baptists 
'alone  compose  the  true  Church,  unless  the  Church  has  the 
power  of  'loosing  mid  binding  /  "    So  if  is  here  truthfully 


40 


asserted,  by  this  eminent  Catholic  Archbishop,  that  our 
Methodist  friends  derive  their  authority  for  the  change  of 
the  ordinance  from  immersion  to  sprinkling  and  pouring, 
from  their  grandmother,  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  not  from 
the  Scripture.  If  Dr.  H.  denies  this,  hear  what  Leo  I,  Pope 
of  Rome  A.  D.  440,  says:  "The  regular  administration  of 
baptism  was  immersion."  Pope  Zacharias,  A.  D.  741, 
says:  "Immersion  was  the  only  practice"  Cardinal  Wise- 
man says :  "We  retain  the  name  of  baptism,  which  means 
immersion,  though  the  rite  is  no  longer  performed  by  it, 
having  been  changed  by  The  Church"  Erasmus,  this  won- 
derful scholar, quotes  Cyprian  as  saying:  "Teach  all  nations, 
dipping  them  in  the  name,"  &c.  Cyprian  lived  in  the  third 
century  with  Tertullian  and  Origen,  only  about  104  years 
after  the  Apostle  John.  Tertullian  also  speaks  of  "John's 
dipping  the  people  in  the  river  Jordan."  One  more.  Bish- 
op Trevan,  a  learned  Catholic,  in  his  celebrated  argument, 
uses  the  following  remarkable  language :  "But  without  go- 
ing any  farther,  show  us,  my  lords,  the  validity  of  your 
baptism  by  Scripture  alone."  Jesus  Christ  in  the  Bible  or- 
dains that  baptism  shall  be  conferred  not  by  pouringwatev 
on  the  heads  of  believers,  but  by  believers  being  plunged 
into  the  water.  The  word  baptizo  employed  by  the  evan- 
gelists strictly  conveys  this  signification  as  the  learned  are 
agreed" 

We  have  already  referred  to  the  concessions  of  Drs. 
Clark  and  Wesley,  of  the  Methodist  Church.  We  will  men- 
tion one  more.  Joseph  Benson,  a  very  popular  commen- 
tator, on  Rom.  6-4  remarks:  "Therefore,  we  are  buried 
with  Him,"  alluding  to  the  ancient  manner  of  baptizing  by 
immersion.  Dr.  Benson,  may  like  my  friend  Dr.  Hudson, 
practice  sprinkling,  but  unlike  him  confesses  that  immer- 
sion was  the  ancient  baptism.  Having  noticed  what 
( Quakers, Catholics  and  Methodists  have  conceded  to  Baptist 
principles,  hear  what  the  most  learned  scholars  and  divines 
of  the  I^piscopalians  say.   Take  Dr.  Arthur  P.  Stanley, 


41 


Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  of  the  University  of  Ox- 
ford, and  who  declined  the  office  of  Archbishop  of  Dublin, 
upon  the  death  of  the  lamented  Whateley.  In  his  lectures 
published  a  few  years  ago,  on  the  history  of  the  Eastern 
Church,  he  says :  "  There  can  be  no  question  that  the  orig- 
inal form  of  baptism,  the  very  meaning  of  the  word,  was 
complete  immersion  in  the  deep  baptismal  waters  ;  and 
that  for  at  least  four  centuries  any  other  form  was  either 
unknown  or  regarded,  unless  in  the  case  of  dangerous  ill- 
ness, as  an  exceptional,  almost  a  monstrous  case/" 
Again,  "whilst  the  Greek  Church  still  rigidly  adheres  to  im- 
mersion, the  Koman  Catholic  Church,  doubtless  in  defer- 
ence to  the  requirements  of  a  Northern  climate,  to  the 
change  of  manners,  to  the  convenience  of  custom,  has 
wholly  altered  the  mode,  preferring  a  few  drops  of  wa- 
ter, for  the  three-fold  plunge  into  the  rushing  rivers  or  the 
wide  baptisteries  of  the  East."  He  says:  "The  Greek 
Church  is  the  only  living  representative  of  the  Hellenic  race, 
and  speaks  the  only  living  voice  which  has  come  down  to 
us  from  the  Apostolic  age !  "  And  yet  this  Church  which  as 
Stanley  says,  u  rea as  the  whole  code  of  Scripture,  old  as 
well  as  new,  in  the  language  in  which  it  was  read  and  spo- 
ken by  the  Apostles,  this  same  Greek  Church  practices  only 
immersion  as  baptism,  and  absolutely  repudiates  and 
ignores  any  other  mode  of  administration  as  essentially 
valid."  This  Church  prevails  over  the  Byzantine  Empire, 
and  numbers  its  millions.  And  yet  Dr.  H.  says  on  page 
81,  "No  Church  as  such,  except  the*  Baptist,  requires  any 
X>articular  form  of  baptism  as  a  sine  qua  non  condition  of 
membership."  Yet  if  he  will  read  a  little  more  carefully 
he  will  observe  a  Church  outnumbering  his  own  boasted 
thousands,  and  that  utterly  "repudiates  and  ignores  "  the 
validity  of  my  friend's  baptism,  if  the  learned  and  popular 
Dr.  Stanley  is  to  be  believed.  Another  Greek  writer,  Chris- 
topulos,  sajs:  "We  follow  the  example  of  the  Apostles, 
who  immersed  the  candidate  under  the  water."  Jeremiah, 


42 


another  Greek  patriarch  says :  "  The  ancients  were  not  ac- 
customed to  sprinkle  but  immerse  the  candidates."  Still 
Dr.  H.  boldly  asserts:  "There  is  no  command  to  baptize 
by  immersion." 

We  will  let  Dr.  Wall,  an  Episcopalian,  the  ablest  defender 
of  infant  baptism  of  the  Pedo-Baptist  denomination,  re- 
ply to  Dr.  H.  "Immersion  was  the  practice  of  the  Primi- 
tive Church.  This  is  so  plain  and  clear  by  an  infinite  num- 
ber of  passages,  that  one  cannot  but  pity  the  weak  en- 
deavors of  such  Pedo-Baptists  as  would  maintain  the  neg- 
ative of  it.  'Tis  a  great  want  of  prudence,  as  well  as  hon- 
esty to  refuse  to  grant  to  an  adversary  what  is  certainly 
true  and  may  be  proved  so." 

Thus  we  see  how  these  great  and  good  men  of  all  de- 
nominations are  honest  in  making  concessions  to  the  Bap- 
tists who  rest  their  rule  of  practice  and  faith  upon  the  Bi- 
ble alone.  And  why  should  they  do  so  unless  constrained 
by  candor  and  truth  ?  Why  should  the  master  spirits  of 
the  ecclesiastical  world  be  found  testifying  to  the  truth  of 
Baptist  principles,  if  those  principles  be  not  sound,  and  in 
accordance  with  the  teachings  of  the  Bible  ?  Men  of  intel- 
ligence and  candor  are  never  known  to  turn  witnesses 
against  themselves,  either  before  God  or  man  ,  unless  forced 
by  the  truth  thus  to  act.  How  these  Christian  writers  can 
reconcile  their  daily  practice,  so  contrary  to  these  wonder- 
ful admissions,  I  leave  for  them  to  settle  before  a  higher 
tribunal. 

"  'Tis  something  strange,  we  freely  own, 
That  those  who  preach  immersion  down. 
Should  after  all  the  things  they  say, 
Consent  to  tread  this  frantic  way, 
And  from  the  pulpit  straight  repair 
To  practice  what  they  censured  there. 
Rather  than  lose  a  wandering  sheep, 
Whom  all  their  reasonings  cannot  keep. 
To  please  the  man,  but  not  his  God, 
They  will  immerse  him  in  the  flood." 

But  we  refer  once  more  to  page  81  of  the  Methodist 


43 


Armor.   Immersion  is  here  affirmed  to  be  "Indecent  and 

DANGEROUS." 

Our  friend's  favorite  author,  Richard  Watson,  is  here 
quoted  and  paraded  before  his  readers.  It  is  found  in  his 
"  Theological  Institutes,"  Vol.  II,  page  648-660.  Since 
Dr.  H.  uses  only  a,  part  of  this  remarkable  language,  we 
here  give  the  reader  the  benefit  of  the  whole  passage.  He 
says,  "With  all  the  arrangements  of  modern  times  baptism 
by  immersion  is  not  a  decent  practice.  There  is  not  a  fe- 
male perhaps  who  submits  to  it  who  has  not  a  great  previ- 
ous struggle  with  her  delicacy."  Again:  "Even  if  immer- 
sion had  been  the  original  mode  of  baptizing,  we  should,  in 
the  absence  of  any  command  on  the  subject,  direct  or  im- 
plied, have  thought  the  Church  at  liberty  to  accommodate 
the  manner  of  applying  water  to  the  body  in  the  name  of 
the  Trinity,  in  which  the  essence  of  the  rite  consists,  to  dif- 
ferent climates  and  manners ;  but  it  is  satisfactory  to  dis- 
cover that  all  attempts  made  to  impose  upon  Christians 
a  practice  repulsive  to  the  feelings,  dangerous  to  health , 
and  offensive  to  delicacy,  is  destitute  of  all  Scriptural  au- 
thority and  of  really  primitive  practice."    "Indecent! " 

Offensive !  "  And  yet  "valid,"  "  equally  valid  with,  sprink- 
ling! "  It  cannot  be  valid  unless  Christ  appointed  it  .  Our 
Saviour  appoints  an  ordinance  "indecent!"  "offensive!" 
nay,  submitted  to  an  indecent  thing  himself!  In  the  lan- 
guage of  a,  distinguished  Baptist  who  left  the  Methodist 
Church :  "May  Heaven  have  mercy  on  the  man  who  makes 
such  an  appeal!  The  vulgarity  is  in  the  man  and  not 
in  immersion." 

Dr.  Lee,  late  editor  of  the  Richmond  Christian  Ad- 
vocate, says :  "  Is  there  anything  in  Christ's  personal  char- 
acter that  indicates  a  possible  justification  ofsucha  scene? 
( Immersion  of  a  female.)  No.  He  was  too  pure,  too  gen- 
tle, too  modest  to  institute  such  a  ceremony  as  an  .ordi- 
nance of  His  Church.  You  will  find  it  impossible  to  im- 
agine Peter  and  Paul  engaged  in  any  such  administration 


44 


of  baptism.  We  insist  that  if  women  must  be  immersed,  it 
ought  to  be  by  moonlight,  or  if  in  the  face  of  the  sun,  in  the 
presence  only  of  women  by  a  blindfolded  minister. ' '  Again : 
Methodist  Tracts,  No.  180:  "The  idea  of  being  plunged 
into  water  is  so  dreadful  to  some,  that  it  renders  them  un- 
lit to  wait  upon  the  Lord  without  distraction."  It  is  a 
circumstance  so  revolting  to  our  delicacy  in  these  times 
that  we  cannot  but  think  immersion  an  innovation ,"  ( No. 
130.)  "  The  practice  of  walking  into  a  river  or  pond  where 
the  water  is  itself  filthy,  appearing  more  like  objects  of  grief 
than  members  of  that  Kingdom  wrhichis  joy,  &c;  their  hair 
disheveled,  their  garments  defiled  and  dripping,  is  all  this 
commendable  in  woman  ?  "  ( Methodist  Tracts.  130-180, 
page  20.)  "Baptism  by  pouring  comports  with  decency, 
but  does  immersion." — Methodist  Armor,  page  93.  And 
yet  those  who  publish  and  circulate  such  contemptible 
abuse  of  immersion  and  to  whom  "the  idea  is  exceedingly 
dreadful  and  indecent,"  immerse  all  they  cannot  ridicule 
out  of  the  notion.  "There  is  no  command,"  says  Dr.  H., 
"to  baptize  by  immersion."  But  we  will  show  before  we 
get  through,  that  he  is  egregiously  mistaken,  that  the  very 
meaning  of  the  word  baptize,  implies  it  in  the  Great  Com- 
mission, "Go,  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,  "&c,  that 
it  is  a  most  positive  command  and  requires  obedience.  He 
says:  "The  following  Bible  examples  lead  us  to  believe 
that  the  Apostles  administered  it  by  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling." 

1.  Baptism  of  Paul,  page  81,  Armor.  "And  Ananias 
went  his  way,"  &c.  *  *  *  u  and  he  received  sight  forth- 
with, and  arose  and  was  baptized."  Acts  9-17-18.  Here 
he  insists  that  Paul  could  not  have  been  immersed.  On 
the  expression,  "arise  and  be  baptized,  ("literally  stand- 
ing up,  be  baptized," )  "  and  he  arose  and  was  baptized ;  " 
("literally  standing  up  he  was  baptized;")  *  *  "it 
definitely  and  precisely  expresses  his  (Paul's)  posture 
when  he  received  baptism,"  and  concludes :  "The  whole  air 


45 


of  it  is  that  he  just  stood  up  from  his  prostration,  in  order 
to  be  baptized  wMe  upon  his  feet."  Now  it  is  urged  here 
that  Paul  could  not  have  been  immersed  for  he  was  too 
weak.  "Three  days  had  he  been  sunk  in  feebleness  and 
fasting"— he  was  too  feeble  to  go  out  to  the  river— he  just 
stood  up  from  his  prostration,  "that  he  was  baptized," 
( Sprinkled)  " standing  up."  But  why,  (we  ask)  was  it 
necessary  for  Paul  to  stand  up  to  be  sprinkled  or  poured 
upon  ?  Being  very  weak,  as  they  say,  and  reclining,  he  was 
just  in  the  right  position  to  be  sprinkled  if  that  was  the 
mode  of  baptism  he  was  to  receive.  He  doubtless  was  in 
an  attitude  of  prayer,  for  it  is  said,  "  Behold  he  prayeth." 
And  we  have  noticed  some  Methodist  ministers  'administer 
baptism  to  the  candidate  while  kneeling.  There  was  no 
necessity  then,  for  Paul  to  rise  up,  in  order  to  have  water 
poured  or  sprinkled  on  him.  Now  if  the  Bible  had  said 
that  Paul  was  too  weak  to  sit  up  but  was  baptized  in  a  re- 
clining posture, they  would  have  exclaimed  at  once:  "Do  you 
not  see  he  could  not  have  been  immersed,  for  he  was  bap- 
tized reclining  upon  a  couch?"  But  "he  arose  and  was 
baptized,  "  is  the  language  used,  the  very  thing  he  ought  to 
have  done  in  order  to  immersion,  and  yet  they  claim  that 
this  idea  is  against  baptism  in  that  way,  for,  say  they,  the 
word  standing,  implies  that  Paul  remained  in  this  posture 
to  receive  his  baptism.  But  this  is  not  so.  "For,"  says  a 
high  authority,  "the  word  rose  up  indicates  motion,  pre- 
paratory to  departure  from  a  place."  "  It  is  here  used  to 
state  that  Paul  moved  off."  So  we  read :  "  Saul  arose  and 
got  him  up  to  Gilgal."  "  David  arose  and  fled  for  fear  of 
Saul."  "Saul  rose  up  out  of  the  cave  and  went."  But 
poor  Paul  must  " arise' "  and  stand  still. 

There  are  several  places  in  this  chapter  in  regard  to 
Paul's  baptism  where  the  word  "arise"  is  used.  "Arise 
and  go  into  the  city."  Was  he  to  go  "  standing  still?  " 
"Arise  and  go  into  the  street  which  is  called  straight." 
Was  Ananias  standing  still  as  he  went  ?   Paul  "  arose  and 


46 


was  baptized . ' '  Where  is  the  proof  now  that  he  was 1  4  stand- 
ing' still "  when  he  received  the  rite  of  baptism? 

Is  the  reader  not  satisfied  that  the  word  " arose7'  was 
simply  intended  to  denote  the  movement  of  Paul  to  some 
place  where  baptism  could  be  properly  administered  ?  But 
Paul  settles  the  question  beyond  cavil  when  he  says :  "  So 
many  of  us,  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  bap- 
tized into  his  death.  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by 
baptism  into  death.  "—Rom.  VI,  3-4.  Some  have  insisted 
that  there  was  no  suitable  place,  or  that  sufficient  water 
could  not  be  found  for  Paul's  immersion.  Let  us  see.  Paul 
was  in  Damascus.  Naaman  said,  -"Are  not  Abana  and 
Pharpar,  rivers  of  Damascus,  better  than  all  the  waters  of 
Israel?  May  I  not  wash  in  them  and  be  clean?  " — Second 
Kings,  v— 10.  Besides  much  is  written  of  the  clearness  and 
sweetness  of  these  two  rivers.  One  of  them  is  said  to  run 
along  through  this  ancient  city,  furnishing  the  houses  with 
good  water,  and  the  other  "  flows  through  the  orchards 
and  gardens,  vineyards  and  meadows,"  &c.  What  a  suit- 
able place  then  for  this  great  Apostle  to  be  baptized  in  im- 
itation of  his  Master! 

Here  we  will  close  this  account  of  Paul's  baptism  by 
giving  place  to  Dr.  Barnes,  the  learned  Presbyterian  divine" 
who  clearly  trips  up  our  friend  Hudson's  theory  and  drives 
him  to  take  shelter  with  the  jailer's  family  where  we  will 
follow  him.  Barnes  in  his  "notes"  says  of  Paul:  "The 
word  'arose,'  does  not  imply  that  he  had  been  sitting.  It 
does  not  refer  to  any  change  of  position  but  expresses  the 
act  of  setting  out,  or  beginning  to  do  anything.  It  was  a 
common  expression  among  the  Hebrews  to  denote  entering 
upon  a.  piece  of  business.  Now  if  Luke  had  said  he  sat  still 
and  was  baptized  ,  it  might  have  made  some  difficulty ;  but 
if  he  '  rose  up'  or  prepared  himself,  he  would  do  this  equally 
whether  he  was  sprinkied  or  immersed.  Immersion  is  quite 
as  probable,  so  far  as  this  word  is  concerned,  as  sprinkling 
or  anything  else.  "   So  says  this  popular  author  andPres- 


47 


byterian,  who  is  too  honest  to  seize  on  such  weak  and  un- 
tenable argument  for  sprinkling  as  an  ordinance. 

We  come  next  to  the  "  Baptism  of  the  Jailer,  "page  82, 
Armor.  Dr.  H.  thinks  here  he  has  certainly  found  a  place 
where  "immersion  was  impossible  under  the  circumstan- 
ces." Let  us  see.  The  recital  is  found  in  Acts,  10  ch.  Dr. 
Hudson  takes  only  a  part  of  this  passage  of  Scripture,  just 
so  much  of  it  as  suits  his  purpose  and  then  adds  :  1st  .  "The 
jailer  and  his' family  were  baptized  at  the  hour  of  midnight 
in  the  prison/'  2nd.  "  The  baptism  took  place  in  the 
prison."  He"  says,  "  We  have  the  authority  of  the  Apostles 
that  they  did  not  go  out  of  the  prison.  Paul  refused  to 
leave  the  prison  privily."  "Who  can  believe,"  says  he 
"  that  Paul  had  gone  out  to  some  river  at  midnight,  gone 
privily,  secretly,  and  immersed  the  parties  and  then  slipped 
back  into  the  prison  and  demanded  a  public  and  honorable 
discharge  from  the  prison  after  he  had  already  been  out. 
No  such  hypocrisy  can  be  charged  against  them.  The  con- 
clusion is  inevitable  that  they  had  not  been  out  of  prison- 
bounds." 

Again,  "  There  is  not  the  slightest  ground  for  the  wild 
supposition  that  a  Roman  prison  was  provided  with  any- 
thing like  a  baptistry, ' '  &c.  "  Besides,  Philippi  was  located 
in  the  very  latitude  of  '  Snowy  Thrace '  where  such  things 
would  not  be  needed.  A  bath  or  tank  in  a  Roman  prison ! 
As  well  expect  to  find  a  piano  in  the  wigwam  of  a.  flat-head- 
ed Indian.  "  He  says,  "there  was  a  baptism  in  the  prison, 
but  most  clearly  it  was  not  immersion/'  He  says  "it  was 
either  sprinkling  or  pouring,"  &cM  &c.  I  belie*  ve  I  have  got 
down  the  Dr's.  strongest  points  on  this  passage.  So  here 
again  we  will  have  to  pull  down  this  stronghold  of  Metho- 
dism. There  was  most  certainly  a  baptism  administered 
to  the  jailer  and  his  family.  How  was  it?  There  is  no 
mystery  or  doubt  even,  about  the  manner  of  it.  There  was 
no  sprinkling,  no  pouring.  Luke,  the  inspired  Apostle, 
says,  "he  was  immersed,  he  and  all  his,  straightway,"  for 


48 


the  word  baptized  cannot  be  and  never  has  been  rendered 
in  any  language  to  mean  sprinkled;  this  alone,  is  sufficient,' 
without  any  supposed  obstacles  to  forever  settle  the  mat- 
ter. Besides  we  have  heretofore  shown  from  leading  writers 
and  historians  of  all  denominations,  from  authors,  sacred 
and  profane,  that  no  other  mode  than  that  of  immersion 
was  practiced  to  any  extent  for  13  hundred  years  after 
Christ  ordained  it,  and  that  sprinkling  and  pouring  are  the 
inventions  of  man  and  not  sanctioned  by  divine  authority. 
But  look  how  incorrectly  Dr.  H.  states  the  case.  He  says, 
"The  baptism  took  place  in  the  prison,"  that  "we  have 
the  authority  of  the  Apostles  that  they  did  not  go  out  of 
the  prison" — that  Paul  was  too  brave  a  man  to  go  out  of 
the  prison  to  immerse  the  parties  and  then  "  secretly  slip 
back  into  the  prison,  "  &c.  It  was  by  no  means  impossible 
for  immersion  to  take  place  in  the  jail.  Lord  Bacon*  says, 
"Bathing  with  the  Komans  and  Grecians  was  as  usual  as 
eating  and  sleeping,  and  so  it  is  with  the  Turks  to  this 
day.  "  It  is  also  said  that  their  prisons  were  provided  with 
baths.  The  writer  once  visited  the  penitentiaiy  at  Albany , 
N.  Y.,  and  a  State  .prison  at  Detroit,  Mich.,  where  the  pris- 
oners had  bath  rooms — Avater  in  which  their  whole  bodies 
could  be  plunged  or  immersed — these  were  for  the  purpose 
of  cleanliness.  And  Dr.  Judson  states  that  in  India  baths 
in  prisons  were  common.  That  the  Philippian  jailer  had 
no  convenient  place  for  immersion  must  first  be  proved  be- 
fore it  is  granted.  The  mere  assertion  will  not  do.  But 
the  truth  is,  the  baptism  was  not  done  in  the  jail,  as  as- 
serted by  our  opponent.  Don't  we  read,  verse  30,  how  the 
jailer  sprang  into  the  prison  and  brought  the  Apostles  out 
of  it?  Verse  32— He  brought  them  into  his  own  house— 
they  spoke  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  all  that  were  in  his 
house.  So  you  see  the  Apostles  were  in  the  family  apart- 
ments. And  again,  verse  33  he  took  them  somewhere  else, 
washed  their  stripes,  and  was  himself  baptized,  and  then, 
verse  34  he  brought  the  Apostles  back  into  his  house  and 


49 


"  set  meat  before  them. "  But  who  knows  where  this  pris- 
on stood  ?  It  may  have  been  on  the  bank  of  a  river,  as 
many  of  our  prisons  are  in  this  day  and  country.  It  is  cer- 
tain there  was  a  river  near  (see  verse*  13)  to  which  the  peo- 
ple were  accustomed  to  go  for  purification.  It  is  highly 
probable  there  were  conveniences  for  bathing  on  the  prem- 
ises of  the  jailer  and  this  was  the  opinion  of  the  learned 
Gratius,  "that  would  most  commodiously  admit  of  the  or- 
dinance of  this  form."  Even  in  "Snowy  Thrace"  the 
Greeks  to  this  day  practice  only  immersion,  and  have  al- 
ways repudiated  and  ignored  any  other  form  of  baptism. 
So  away  goes  Dr.  Hudson's  "Snowy  Thrace "  idea.  As  to 
the  wigwam  of  the  flat-headed  Indian  and  his  piano,  that 
reminds  me  of  the  Indians  idea  of  baptism  as  related  some 
years  ago.  A  traveling  minister  of  the  Methodist  Church 
gave  an  old  Indian  a  Testament,  which  he  had  learned  to 
read  in  English,  and  appointed  a  certain  time  and  place  for 
the  purpose  of  baptizing  all  who  wished  to  join  his  Church. 
The  day  arrived,  and  all  the  candidates  wTere  found  at  the 
meeting  house,  but  the  Indian  was  missing,  and  upon  in- 
quiry it  was  told  that  he  was  seen  sitting  on  the  bank  of  a 
stream  near  by  reading  his  Testament.  The  preacher  sent 
for  him  to  come  to  the  house  if  he  wished  to  be  baptized 
along  with  the  others,  but  says  he,  "  How  can  you  baptize 
at  the  house?  There  is  no  water  there,"  and  insisted  that 
the  creek  was  the  place  as  he  read  it ;  but  on  being  told  that 
it  was  not  necessary  to  be  baptized  in  the  creek,  that  the 
minister  only  sprinkled  a  few  drops  or  poured  a  little  wa- 
ter out  of  a  pitcher  or  cup  in  order  to  baptize  one,  the 
Indian  replied  if  that  was  the  case,  the  preacher  had  given 
him  the  wrong  book. 

This  closes  our  article  on  the  jailer's  family,  and  we  pro- 
ceed to  follow  our  author  to  his  next  stronghold,  for  al- 
though the  Indian  might  have  little  use  for  a*  "  piano,  "  yet 
I  venture  the  assertion,  let  him  learn  to  read  the  New  Tes- 
tament for  himself,  and  nninstrncted  as  to  the  ordinances. 


50 

except  what  he  gets  by  reading  the  pure  word  of  God  he 
would  not  likely  be  a  Methodist;  or  at  least  if  he  should 
the  preacher  would  have  to  impose  upon  him  a  dangerous 
and  indecent "  mode. 

3rd.  «  Baptism  of  Cornelius,-  page  84,  Armor.   «  While 
r  ^et  *Pak&  the«e  words,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all 
them  which  heard  the  word/'  &c.   *   *   « Then  answered 
Peter,  can  any  man  forbid  water  that  these  should  not  be 
baptized,  which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as 
we  ?   And  he  commanded  them  to  be  baptized  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord.    Then  prayed  they  him  to  tarry  certain 
days.- -Acts.  10-44-48    -The  clear  inference  is  that  Cor- 
nelms  and  his  household  were  baptized  by  pdiiPmg  The 
circumstance  proves  this.   They  went  to  no  river  they 
are  not  said  to  go  down  to  any  wa  ter,  nor  are  we  told  that 
They  had  a  bath  adapted  for  such  a  purpose  in  their  house 
I  eters  remark  aboiit  forbidding  water,  indicates  that  it 
was  to  be  brought  to  him  for  the  purpose  of  administering- 
this  nfe.   And  above  all,  it  should  be  noticed,  that  when 
the  Apostle  saw  the  Holy  Spirit  descending  upon  them  he 
was  reminded  of  what  Christ  had  sa  id  of  John's  baptizin<>- 
with  water.     (Acts,  xi-10.    Whence  this  instantaneous 
recollection  and  association  of  ideas,  but from  the  fact that 
the  mode  of  water  baptism  was  in  form  the  same  as  that 
of  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost?   Had  either  John  or 
Peter  baptized  by  dipping  the  narrative  and  the  allusion 
would  have  been  grossly  inconsistent  and  calculated  to 
mislead  the  most  devout  and  clear  headed  student  of  inspi- 
ration. '   Here  we  have  quoted  the  whole  argument  Dr  H 
uses  to  show  that  pouring-  m  this  place  was  what  Peter 
practiced  m  his  administration  of  baptism  and  that  "  dip- 
ping would  have  been  grossly  inconsistent."   Let  us  see  if 
he  is  correct.    -The  objection  here  to  immersion,'"  says 
Dr.  Pendleton,  -  is  almost  a  laughable  one.    The  question 
only  means,  can  any  one  forbid  the  baptism  of  these  Gen- 
tiles who  have  received  the  Holy  Spirit  as  well  as  the  Jews  > 


51 


Peter  does  not  say  the.  "water  was  to  be  brought."  He 
only  says  \\hd  Avill  " forbid  water?"  Baptist  ministers  of- 
ten say  in  receiving  candidates,  "Can  any  man  forbid  wa- 
ter," &c.  It  simply  means,  can  any  one  object  to  the  bap- 
tism of  these  Gentiles ;  for  this  is  the  first  recorded  instance 
of  the  Gentiles  being  received  into  the  number  of  the  Dis- 
ciples. But  Dr.  H.  here  again,  brings  up  his  favorite  idea 
of  Holy  Ghost  baptism,  that  as  the  Apostle  "saw  the  Holy 
Spirit  descending''  upon  them,  it  proves  conclusively  that 
Veiev  pouivd  wa  ter  on  the  heads,  faces,  or  some  other  parts 
of  the  bodies  of  these  Gentiles.  Dr.  H.  would  have 
us  believe  that  Peter  actually  saw  the  personal  substance 
of  the  Hoh^  Spirit  poured  down  in  a  stream,  literally  and 
visibly,  and  thai"  this  suggested  to  his  mind  how  he  should 
apply  water  in  baptism !  But  the  Scripture  does  not  say 
that  Peter  actually  "saw  the  Holy  Spirit."  It  says  the 
•'Gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  poured  out."  It  was  clearly 
the  miraculous  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  that  was 
"poured  out"  and  shed  forth  on  the  hearts  and  minds  of 
these  people  which  caused  them  to  "speak  with  tongues 
and  magnify  God."  Peter  seeing  this  wonderful  change 
wrought  in  them,  very  naturally  concluded  they  were  now 
fit  subjects  of  baptism  and  therefore  "commanded  them  to 
be  immersed  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  For  Dr.  Chalmers  ■ 
and  all  the  most  eminent  divines  declare  the  "original 
meaning  of  the  word  baptism  is  immersion."  If  the  word 
means  poured,  hear  how  the  text  would  read:  "Can  any 
man  f eft-bid  water  that  these  should  be  poured,  which  have 
received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we?  And  he  command- 
ed them  to  be  j)oured."  How  ridiculous!  Now  substitute 
the  word  immersed  which  should  have  been  given  in  'the 
translation,  and  it  is  all  natural  and  plain. 

We  now  come  to  the  next  stronghold  in  the  Methodist 
Armor,  page  85. 

4th.  The  Baptism  of  the  three  thousand.  "Then  Pe- 
ter said  unto  them,  Repent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of 


52 


you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins 
and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Then  they 
that  gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized ,  and  the  same 
day  there  were  added  unto  them  about  three  thousand 
souls."  (Acts  2—38—41.)  This  text  is  often  given  by  our 
opponents  and  urged  by  them  as  unanswerable  by  those 
who  maintain  immersion  i*o  be  the  only  mode.  Dr.  H. 
gives  us  two  insurmountable  difficulties  in  the  way  of  im- 
mersion. 1st,  Not  time  enough,  and  2nd,  There  was  not 
water  enough .  This  is  what  he  say s :  ' '  Now,  supposing  the 
twelve  Apostles  to  have  been  engaged  in  this  work,  and 
supposing  immersion  to  have  been  the  mode,  it  must  have 
been  a  most  laborious,  disagreeable,  if  not  impracticable, 
undertaking  to  be  accomplished  in  the  course  of  five  or  six 
hours.  It  should  be  taken  into  the  account,  moreover, 
that  at  least  twenty-four  robing  rooms,  and  a  dozen  dip- 
ping places  must  have  been  obtained  for  the  purpose,"  &c. 

2nd .  '  'Now,  in  Jerusalem  itself,  there  was  neither  a  river 
nor  fountain  of  water.  Kedron  was  little  better  than  the 
common  sewer  of  the  city,  and  was  dry  except  during  the 
early  and  latter  rains.  Siloam  was  only  a  spring  without 
the  walls,  not  always  flowing,  the  contents  of  which  were 
,  sometimes  sold  to  the  people  by  measure;  and  the  pools 
supplied  by  its  puny  streams  were  either  used  for  washing- 
sheep,  and  similar  purposes,  rendering  them  unfit  for  cere- 
monial purposes,  or  they  were  owned  by  persons  not  likely 
to  lend  them  for  washing  apostate  strangers  in.  Tke  water 
used  for  domestic  purposes  was  obtained  from  the  rains 
of  heaven,  and  preserved  in  household  tanks,  and  of  course 
was  guarded  with  the  utmost  care  and  used  with  a  rigid 
economy — it  raining  there  only  two  seasons  in  the  year.  It 
may  be  further  mentioned  that  the  fountain  of  Siloam  is 
the  only  place  in  the  environs  of  Jerusalem  where  the  trav- 
eller can  moisten  his  finger,  quench  his  thirst,  and  rest  his 
head  under  the  shadow  of  the  cool  rock  and  on  two  or  three 
tufts  of  verdure.   Th  a  t  the  case  was  precisely  similar  in  the 


\ 


53 


time  of  the  Apostle,"  &e.,  &c.  Now  we  must  first  notice  Ms 
first  objection— "  There  was  not  time  enough."  We  think 
we  shall  be  able  to  overthrow  this  fortification  of  our  op- 
ponent, and  the  fair-minded  reader  will  conclude  before  he 
gets  through  that  there  is  manifested  on  the  part  of  some 
Pedo-Baptist  writers,  either  great  unfairness  or  ignorance. 
The  question  is.  "Were  the  three  thousand  sprinkled  or 
•  immersed  ?"  "  Was  there  time  enough  to  immerse  them 
all  in  one  day?  *'  Xow,  it  is  a  fact,  that  it  takes  about  as 
long  for  a  Methodist  preacher  to  sprinkle  a  candidate  as  it 
does  for  a  Baptist  minister  to  immerse  one ;  from  my  ob- 
servation it  consumes  more  time  even,  so  they  defeat  their 
own  theory  in  endeavoring  to  upset  ours.  But  they  give 
the  Apostles  6  hours  and  say  it  was  impossible  to  bap- 
tize (immerse)  them  all  in  that  space  of  time.  Dr.  Curtis 
admirably  ventilates  this  objection.  He  says :  "  It  is  pain- 
fully little  having  to  discuss  questions  of  time  about  a  mat- 
ter of  this  solemn  interest ;  it  is  an  ordinance  that  is  usual- 
ly prolonged  from  its  pleasant  nature.  What  antiquary 
ever  denied  the  immersion  of  ten  thousand  in  one  day  in 
the  river  Swale  near  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century  ? 
( )r  whoever  ventured  to  question  that  the  baptism  of  the 
three  thousand  on  Easter  eve,  A.  D.,  404,  at  Constantino- 
ple, was  by  immersion,  though  disturbed  by  the  officers 
sent  to  arrest  Chrysost om  ? ' ?  Remigius ,  Bishop  of  Rheim s , 
immersed  three  thousand  in  one  day,  A.  D.,  496,  assisted 
by  his  clergy.  These  historical  facts  are  too  Avell  estab- 
lished to  be  at  all  denied.  Dr.  Curtis  relates  a  circumstance 
of  his  own  observation.  Twenty-seven  persons  were  im- 
mersed in  a  stream  in  a  most  solemn  and  impressive  man- 
ner— a  scene,  he  says,  so  interesting  and  solemn  as  never 
faded  from  the  memories  of  those  who  witnessed  it,  and 
that  the  minister  immersed  the  entire  twenty-seven  candi- 
dates in  eight  minutes.  In  this  way  the  whole  of  the  three 
thousand  might  have  been  baptized  in  less  than  one  horn 
and  a  quarter  by  the  twelve  Apostles.    Make  the  calcula- 


54 


tion.  But  it  is  probable  that  the  seventy  Apostles  were 
also  present  and  aided  in  this  grand  scene,  "for  they  were 
all  with  one  accord  in  the  same  place,"  says  the  Scripture. 
This  would  make  eighty-two  administrators,  and  if  they 
were  all  present,  they  must  all  have  taken  part  in  this  de- 
lightful service,  for  I  have  never  seen  a  Baptist  minister 
yet  who  did  not  regard  it  a  great  pleasure  to  engage  in  this 
holy  command.  Now  allowing  one  minute  for  one  immer- 
sion to  each  one  of  these  82  administrators— which  is  twice 
as  long  as  a  Baptist  preacher  requires  now-a-days— and 
the  whole  ceremony  of  immersing  the  three  thousand  could 
have  been  performed  in  less  than  one  hour!  But  the  dis- 
tinguished Dr.  Kichard  Fuller  tells  us  in  his  work  on  bap- 
tism that  he  has  more  than  once  baptized  one,and  two  hun- 
dred before  morning  service  on  the  Lord's  day.  According 
to  this  the  twelve  Apostles  even  would  have  no  difficulty 
in  immersing  three  thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  It 
seems  to  us,  therefore,  that  any  objection  made  by  Pedo- 
Baptists  because  there  was  not  time  enough,  is  weak  indeed 
and  destitute  of  sound  reason. 

But  before  we  leave  this  difficulty  in  the  minds  of  our 
opponents,  let  us  hear  what  a  few  impartial  and  distin- 
guished Pedo-Baptists  say  about  this  matter.  1st.  The 
learned  and  sagacious  Venema,  in  his  "Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory, "fairly  states  :  "It  is  without  controversy,  that  bap- 
tism in  the  primitive  Church  was  administered  by  immer- 
sion into  water  and  not  by  sprinkling,  seeing  John  is  said 
to  have  baptized  in- Jordan,  and  where  there  was  much 
water,  as  Christ  also  did  by  his  Disciples  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  those  places  (Matt,  iii  and  John  iii).  Philip  also 
going  down  into  the  water  baptized  the  Eunuch  ( Acts  8 ) 
.  .  .  Nor  is  there  any  necessity  to  have  recourse  to  the  idea 
of  sprinkling  in  -  our  interpretation  of  Acts  II--14,  when 
three  thousand  souls  are  said  to  be  added  to  Christ  by  bap- 
tism, seeing  it  might  be  performed  by  immersion,  equally 
as  by  sprinkling,  especially  as  they  are  not  said  to  have 


been  baptized  at  the  same  time  .  .  .  The  essential  act  of 
baptizing  in  the  first  and  second  century,  consisted  not  in 
sprinkling,  but  in  immersion  into  water  in  the  name  of 
each  person  in  the  Trinity.  Concerning  immersion  the 
words  and  phrases  that  are  used  sufficiently  pro  vet  his  and 
that  it  was  performed  in  a  river,  a  pool,  or  a  fountain.  To 
the  essential  rites  of  baptism  in  the  third  century,  pert  air; 
ed  immersion  and  not  sprinkling,  except  in  cases  @f  iieces 
sity  and  then  it  was  accounted  a  half-perfect  baptism .  .  . 
Immersion  in  the  fourth  century  was  one  of  those  acts  that 
were  considered  as  essential  to  baptism."  Now  the  above' 
quotation  is  from  a  Pedo-Baptist  author,  whose  fame  and 
reputation  for  fairness  and  truth  reaches  across  two  Con- 
tinents, and  he  says  that  "there  is  no  proof  that  the  three 
thousand  were  baptized  by  sprinkling,  seeing  that  it  might 
as  well  have  been  done  by  immersion  as  that  was  the  cus- 
tom in  those  times."  It  looks  reasonable  that  this  great 
and  learned  man,  who  was  not  a  Baptist,  who  had  care- 
fully studied  the  pages  of  ancient  Church  history,  and 
looked  impartially  into  the  matter,  giving  his  candid  and 
honest  opinion  and  against  the  practice  of  his  own  people, 
would  more  likely  be  received  as  correct,  than  the  state- 
ments of  Dr.  Hudson,  whose  fame  is  confined  to  the  nar- 
row limits  of  the  North  Carolina  Conference. 

Once  more,  Bishop  Bossuet  thus  expresses  it:  "It  ap- 
pears not,  that  the  three  thousand  and  the  five  thousand 
mentioned  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  who  were  converted 
at  the  first  sermons  of  St.  Peter,  were  baptized  any  other 
way  than  by  immersion ;  and  the  great  number  of  those 
converts  is  no  proof  that  they  were  baptized  by  sprinkling 
as  some  have  conjectured.  For,  besides  that,  nothing 
obliges  us  to  say  that  they  were  all  baptized  on  the  same 
day,  it  is  certain  that  John  the  Baptist,  who  baptized  no 
less  numbers,  seeing  all  Judea  nocked  to  him,  baptized  no 
other  way  than  by  dipping,  and  his  example  shows  us  that 
to  baptize  a  great  number  of  people  those  places  were  cho- 


56 

sen  where  there  was  an  abundance  of  water."'  We  have 
other  similar  concessions  before  us,  but  surely  nothing 
more  is  necessary  to  show  there  was  time  enough  for  im- 
mersion in  this  case. 

In  the  next  place  we  notice  the  difficulty  as  to  the  scarci- 
ty of 'water.  Dr.  H.,  as  we  have  seen,  says,  "That  thf 
fountain  of  Siloam  is  the  only  place  in  the  environs  of  Jeru- 
salem where  the  traveler  can  moisten  his  finger,  quench  his 
thirst,"  &c.  This  looks  like  a  pretty  hard  story  about ;  wa- 
ter in  the  great  city  of  the  world  at  that  time,  and  if  it  were 
true  there  would  indeed  have  been  great  difficulty  in  the 
supply  of  water  either  for  sprinkling  or  immersion  suffi- 
cient to  refute  the  Apostle's  statement  as  true.  The  fact 
is,  our  opponents  have  attempted  to  prove  too  much  in 
their  eagerness  to  set  up  their  own  theory.  There  is  no 
trouble  to  get  at  the  truth — here  it  is:  Within  the  last 
fifty  years  the  sacred  city  has  been  so  explored  by  survey- 
ors of  the  highest  authority,  that  a  point  like  this  can  be 
settled  on  data  not  to  be  shaken.  Dr.  Robinson  gives  us 
his  observations  upon  Palestine  where  he  personally  exam- 
ined this  whole  matter  with  minuteness  and  care,  which  the 
reader  will  find  in  his  "Biblical  Researches,"  (a  valuable 
Presbyterian  work)  and  from  which  we  learn  there  was 
really  water  enough  to  have  immersed  tens  of  thousands. 
Refer  to  pages  479—518.  1st.  The  pool  of  Siloam,  which 
Dr.  H.  says  was  the  only  place  in  which  "the  traveler  could 
moisten  his  finger,"  Dr.  Robinson  says  was  fifty-three  feet 
long,  eighteen  feet  broad,  nineteen  feet  deep  in  parts,  with 
another  smaller  pool  close  by.  2nd.  "The  lower  pool  of 
Gilion  is  five  hundred  and  ninety-two  feet  long,  two  hun- 
dred and  sixty  feet  broad  and  varies  from  2  to  42  feet  deep. 
It  covers  more  than  four  acres  of  ground,  is  rather  a  lake 
than  a  pool  in  point  of  size,  its  sides  having  a  slope  just 
adapted  to  a  descent  for  immersion.  In  this  spot  alone 
three  thousand,  or  any  number,  might  Imve  been  baptized 
in  one  day.    There  are  many  other  cisterns  or  pools  in 


57 


which  immersions  could  have  been  performed.  In  all  of 
these  places  the  sides  are  more  or  less  sloping,  so  that,  un- 
less at  the  time  of  some  freshet,  they  whould  have  been  sffita  - 
ble  for  bathing-.  "  "  And  there  was  the  pool  of  Bethesda, 
where  the  impotent  man  lay.  It  had  every  convenience 
and  suitability  for  this  rite,  three  hundred  and  sixty  feet 
long,  one  hundred  and  thirty  feet  broad,  seventy-five  feet 
deep  in  parts  but  so  arranged  round  its  sides  as  to  af- 
ford facilities  for  the  baptism  of  multitudes.  "  There  were 
<  >ther  pools— the  pool  of  Hezekiah— see  IT  Kings.  We  learn 
from  II  Chronicles  that  there  was  "much  water  in  Jerusa- 
lem." Xehemiah  speaks  of  the  •"upper  water  of  Gihon," 
brought  straight  down  to  the  west  side  of  the  city  of  Da- 
vid .  In  Isaiah  we  read  of  the  ' k  waters  of  the  Lower  Pool . ' ' 
In  the  New  Testament,  in  John,  we  read  of  a  "pool  by  the 
sheep  market,"  and  also  of  "the  pool  of  Siloam,"  which 
Dr.  H.  says  is  the  "  only  place  in  the  en virons  of  Jerusalem 
where  the  traveler  can  moisten  his  finger,  or  quench  his 
thirst!"  On  the  contrary  travelers  whose  veracity  has 
never  been  doubted,  testify  to  the  great  amount  of  water 
to  be  found  in  and  around  this  great  city,  and  the  Scrip- 
tures themselves  give  us  evidence  to  the  same  purport, 
which  together  establish  the  fact  that  there  probably  nev- 
er was  a  city  in  the  world  supplied  with  a  greater  quantity 
( )f  water  in  proportion  to  its  size.  The  reader  is  referred 
for  full  satisfaction  to  the  testimony  of  Josephus,  who  lived 
at  the  same  time  with  our  Savior,  and  in  his  valuable  work 
gives  us  the  most  vivid  account  of  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem, (read  it,)  also  to  Dr.  Sampson,  Barclay,  Chase  and 
others  who  visited  in  person  this  sacred  city  and  speak  of 
its  abundant  supply  of  water.  Bishop  Marvin ,  of  the  Meth- 
odist Church,  who  recently  died  in  St.  Louis,  in  his  very  in- 
teresting work,  "The  East  by  Way  of  the  West  "  says  on 
page  360  that  Jerusalem  was  a  well  watered  city.  He  vis- 
ited that  city  in  person  and  returned  home  a  short  time  be- 


58 


fore  his  death.  Will  Dr.  H.  question  Bishop  Marvin's 
statement  ? 

Will  any  intelligent  reader,  alter  perusing  these  writers, 
ever  question  the  sufficiency  of  water  for  immersing  the 
three  thousand  ?  We  repeat ,  there  was  time  enough  to  per- 
form the  immersion,  and  water  sufficient  not  only  to  mois- 
ten Dr.  Hudson's  finger,  but  to  immerse  his  entire  body 
and  thousands  more  in  one  day  by  twelve  Baptist  ministers. 


59 


CHAPTER  III. 

A  Review  of  Chapter  VIII  "  Methodist  Armor,"  p.  86. 
"  Objections  Answered." 

1st.  "Buried  with  Him  in  baptism."  "  Know  ye  not 
that  so  many  of  as  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  ,  were 
baptized  into  His  death?  Therefore,  we  are  buried  with 
Him  by  baptism  into  death  ;  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised 
from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also 
should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  For  if  we  have  been  planted 
t  ogether  in  the  likeness  of  His  death,  we  sha  ll  be  also  in  the 
likeness  of  His  resurrection."  (Romans  VI,  3-6.  Colos. 
11-12.)  The  Dr.  then  comments  as  follows  :  "Our  Baptist 
friends  falsely  assume  that  the  baptism  referred  to  here 
means  ritual  or  water  baptism,  whereas,  it  clearly  refers  to 
a  Spiritual  baptism."  If  this  be  so.  Dr.  H.  refutes  his  own 
labored  argument  on  page  80  of  his  book.  There  he  at- 
tempted to  prove  that  "spiritual  baptism  was  by  pour- 
ing." Says  he,  "  I  will  pour  out  my  spirit,  "  &c,  and  then 
adds,  "Now  as  the  Holy  Spirit  was  poured  upon  the  peo- 
ple, J  Peter  poured  water  upon  them  as  the  most  fitting- 
mode  of  baptism . "  He  says  in  another  place, 4  •  When  Peter 
saw  the  Holy  Spirit  poured  out,  this  suggested  to  him  that 
water|baptism  must  be  performed  in  the  same  manner." 
Now  hear  what  Paul  says:  "We  are  buried  with  Him  by 
baptism."  Dr.  H.  sees  his  difficulty,  he  is  staggered,  and 
instead  of  coming  out,  like  most  eminent  Pedo-Baptist  di- 
vines and  honestly  admitting  that  this  text  teaches  the 


GO 


mode  of  baptism  by  immersion  only,  he  stultifies  himself  by 
saying  that  only  spiritual  baptism  is  meant,  whereas  here- 
tofore he  maintained  that  pouring  was  the  manner  in  which 
spiritual  baptism  was  performed.  How  inconsistent  these 
doctors  of  divinity  become  in  time  of  danger !  At  one  time 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  by  pouring  when  it  suits 
his  purpose,  and  now  he  says  "it  is  represented  by  a 
burial"  (an  immersion)  but  has  no  reference  to  water  bap- 
tism here.  He  is  certainly  hard  to  please.  Now  let  some 
of  the  great  Pedo-Baptist  authors  speak  on  this  point,  at 
whose  feet  the  Dr.  and  myself  might  learn  wisdom. 

Prof.  Stuart  states  that  "most  commentators  have 
maintained  that  burial  here  lias  a  necessary  reference  to* 
the  mode  of  literal  baptism  which  they  say  was  by  immer- 
sion, because  immersion  under  the  wa,ter,ma,y  be  compared 
to  a  burial  under  the  earth" 

John  Wesley,  the  father  of  Methodism,  in  his  notes  on 
the  New  Testament,  when  commenting  on  this  passage  of 
Eom.  6,  says:  "Buried  with  Him  by  baptism,  is  an  allu- 
sion to  the  ancient  manner  of  baptizing  by  immersion." 
Will  Dr.  Hudson  dare  repudiate  and  disown  his  own  fa- 
ther ?  He  can  charge  the  Baptists  of  falsely  assuming  that 
it  refers  to  water  baptism,  but  what  will  he  say  when  his 
father  and  other  learned  men  of  his  own  Church  say  the 
same  thing  ? 

Joseph  Benson,  the  popular  commentator  of  the  same 
Church  says:  "We  are  buried  with  Him  clearly  alludes  to 
the  ancient  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion." 

The  celebrated  Dr.  Wall,  ( an  Episcopalian )  says : 
"This  passage  (Kom.  6-4)  fixes  the  question  that  in  an- 
cient baptism  the  whole  body  was  put  under  the  wa/ter." 

Dr.  Samuel  Clarke:  "We  are  buried  with  Christ  by  bap- 
tism, &c.  In  the  primitive  times  the  manner  of  baptizing 
was  by  immersion .  It  was  a  very  significant  emblem  of 
the  dying  and  rising  again,  referred  to  by  St.  Paul  in  the 
above  passage." 


6J 

The  Westminister  Assembly  of  Divines,  consisting  of 
fifty  eminent  ministers,  on  Eomans  6-4 :  "  In  this  phrase, 
the  Apostle  seemeth  to  allude  to  the  ancient  mode  of  bap- 
tism, which  was  to  dip  the  parties  baptized,  and  as  it  were, 
bnry  them  under  water. " 

I  have  before  me  the  evidence  of  many  others,  both  of 
modern  and  ancient  writers,  who,  with  remarkable  una- 
nimity testify  to  the  truthful  assumption  of  Baptists  on 
this  passage.  In  the  face  of  the  united  testimony  of  so 
many  learned  commentators  and  authors,  who  are  not 
Baptists,  some  recent  writers  blindly  and  deliberately  en- 
deavor to  mislead  their  readers,  and  "like  the  blind  lead- 
ing the  blind "  must  inevitably  fall  together  in  the  ditch. 
Dr.  Hudson  can't  see  water  baptism  in  this  plain  word  of 
the  inspired  Apostle;  he  would  not  believe  it  :i though  one 
should  rise  from  the  dead"'  and  tell  him  that  immersion 
alone  was  practiced  by  the  Apostles.  He  says  :  "  No  refer- 
ence whatever  to  the  mode  of  baptism  is  found  here.  It  is 
the  sound  more  than  the  sense  that  strikes  our  Baptist 
brethren.  "  He  then  gives  us  some  quotations  from  "  lead- 
ing Baptist  writers,"  as  he  says,  who  disown  the  above 
passage  as  referring  to  water  baptism,  and  concludes : 
•'Hence  the  entire  argument,  founded  on  these  passages, 
in  favor  of  dipping,  vanishes  in  a  moment."  Now,  we  do 
not  wish  to  seem  so  impolite  as  to  call  in  question  the  ve- 
racity of  our  friend,  but  any  Baptist  who  reads  this  asser- 
tion  will  smile  at  Dr.  Hudson's  credulity  and  pity  rather 
than  be  angry  at  his  weak  and  groundless  proofs  to  estab- 
lish his  sinking  cause. 

On  page  87  of  "  The  Methodist  Armor,"  the  reader  a\  ill 
find  one  of  the  most  remarkable  statements  ever  made  by 
a  Christian  writer.  Not  being  satisfied  that  his  arguments 
already  adduced  were  sufficient  to  disprove  the  idea  of  wa- 
ter baptism  in  the  passage,  "We  are  buried  with  Him  by 
baptism,"  he  here  gravely  denies  that  Christ  was  "  buried 
at  all.   He  says,  "His  precious  body  was  carried  into  a 


62 


room  hewn  out  of  a  rock  and  laid  upon  a  wide  bench.  In 
this  process  there  was  not  the  slightest  resemblance  to  dip- 
ping a  person  under  water;  no  more  than  when  the  body  of 
Dorcas  was  carried  up  stairs  and  laid  upon  a  bed.  And  he 
must  be  sadly  at  a  loss  for  valid  evidence  in  aid  of  immer- 
sion who  seizes  on  this  allusion  to  uphold  his  practice. '? 
We  imagine  the  pious  Christian  who  reads  the  above  re- 
markable statement  of  a  minister  of  the  Gospel,  that  the 
Savior  was  not  buried,  that  his  body  Avas  taken  and  laid 
on  a  side  bench,  will  turn  away  in  disgust  and  sorrow  from 
such  sacreligious  allusions  to  the  final  termination  of  our . 
Redeemer's  earthly  career.  It  is  almost  a  wonder  tha,t  our 
friend  admitted  that  Christ  ever  died  at  all,  in  his.  eager- 
ness to  find  some  excuse  for  denying  immersion  was  the 
mode  of  His  baptism.  It  savors  more  of  mockery  than  of 
an  honest  inquiry  for  truth.  Were  it  not  that  some  infat- 
uated admirer  failed  to  see  it  in  this  light,  it  would  be 
passed  over  in  silent  contempt. 

Hear  what  the  Evangelists  say :  "  Then  took  they  -the 
body  of  Jesus  and  wound  it  in  linen  clothes  with  the  spices, 
as  the  manner  of  the  Jews  is  to  bury.  Now,  in  the  place 
where  he  was  crucified  there  was  a  garden ;  and  in  the  gar- 
den a  new  sepulchre  wherein  was  never  man  laid.  There 
they  laid  Jesus. ' '  John  XIX-40-42.  And  chapter  XX-5  : 
"And  he  (the  disciple)  stooping  down,  and  looking  in  saw 
the  linen  clothes  lying,"  &c.  And  verse  II:  "But  Mary 
stood  without,  weeping,  and  as  she  wept  she  stooped  down 
and  looked  into  the  sepulchre.  "  Again,  Luke  XXIV-12 : 
"Then  arose  Peter,  and  ran  unto  the  sepulchre,  and  stoop- 
ing down  he  beheld  the  linen  clothes  laid  by  themselves.  " 
Matthew  and  Mark  also  state  that  they  laid  the  body  of 
Jesus  in  the  sepulchre.  Matthew  calls  it  a  tomb,  chapter 
27,  verse  60.  Our  English  dictionaries  define  a  sepulchre 
to  mean  "  a,  burial  place,  "  "the  place  where  a  corpse  is  bu- 
ried , "  "  a  grave,  "  "  a  tomb. ' '   ( See  Worcester  Unabridged . ) 

The  Psalmist  in  his  prophecy  of  Christ,  chapter  XVI-10 : 


(58 

•'Because  thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in  hell  (grave), 
neither  wilt  thou  suffer  thine  Holy  One  to  see  corruption. " 
See  also  Acts,  11-27.  See  also  Isaiah  LIII-9 :  ""He  made 
his  grave  with  the  wicked."  Paul  says:  "We  are  buried 
with  Christ, "  &c.  The  Savior  said  he  would  be  buried. 
Matt.  XXYI-12,  also  XII-40.  Paul  says  he  was  buried, 
I  Cor.  XV-3-4.  But  Dr.  Hudson  says  Christ  was  not  buried, 
that  his  body  was  simply  laid  up  on  "a  side  bench.  "'  And 
yet  the  Scriptures  tell  us  that  the  disciple,  Peter,  and  the 
women  ran  unto  the  sepulchre,  and  "stooping  down," 
(looking  down  into  the  grave)  to  see  if  his  body  was  still 
down  there  where  they  sawr  him  buried,  laid  in  the  "tomb,'* 
&e.  AVe  are  not  told  they  looked  up  on  the  "side  bench" 
to  see  if  he  was  up  there.  No,  this  may  suit  our  friend's 
wild  imagination  but  robs  the  grave  of  all  its  solemnity 
and  takes  away  the  resurrection.  Whatever  he  may  prove 
in  other  places,  here  he  fails  sadly  to  make  out  his  case  and 
is  clearly  non  suited. 

But  let  us  recur  to  the  natural  and  Scriptural  meaning 
i  if  this  burial,  before  we  dismiss  this  topic.  There  are  three 
monumental  INSTITUTIONS  in  the  Christian  religion,  given 
to  commemorate  the  grandest  events  connected  with  the 
history  of  our  Savior  while  on  earth.  First,  the  Lord's, 
day  is  commemorative  of  His  resurrection.  Not  a  single 
first  day  of  the  week  has  since  transpired,  not  one  week 
since  the  first  constitution  of  the  Christian  Church,  without 
the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper  or  the  administration 
of  his  word  before  the  great  assemblies.  Thus  the  Sabbath 
became  a  great  and  perpetual  monument  of  Christ's  resur- 
rection, and  with  great  unanimity  is  observed  to  this  day 
by  all  denominations  of  Christians. 

2nd.  The  monumental  institution  of  Baptism.  While 
the  Lord's  day  commemorates  merely  the  time  of  the  res- 
urrection, this  institution  commemorates  his  burial  and 
resurrection.  Jesus  died,  was  buried  and  rose  again.  So 
we  die  unto  all  authority  and  hope  save  that  of  our  Lord 


64 

Jesus,  the  Messiah,  and  consequently  unto  sin,  in  this  act. 
We,  as  all  dead  persons  are,  are  then  buried  with  Christ  for 
a  short  time,  lie  for  a  short  time  in  the  earth,  and  we  for  a 
short  time  in  the  water.  We  also  rise  with  him ;  He  rose 
from  the  dead  and  we  rise  from  our  death  unto  sin,  to  walk 
and  live  and  rejoice  in  a  new  life,  He  having  been  delivered 
for  our  offences  and  raised  for  our  justification. 

F rom  the  day  of  Pentecost  till  now  not  a  year,  week  or 
day  has  passed  without  the  repetition  of  this  commemora- 
tive institution.  Till  the  council  of  Ravenna ,  till  the  reign 
of  Queen  Elizabeth  in  England,  this  ordinance  was  signifi- 
cant of  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.  For 
every  time  we  see  a  person  buried  in  the  water  and  raised 
out  of  it  by  the  power  of  another  we  see  Jesus  emblemati- 
cally buried  and  raised  again.  Many  millions  continue  to 
submit  voluntarily  to  this  monumental  institution  and 
publishing,  without  uttering  a  word  to  the  spectator,  the 
death,  burial  and  resurrection  of  Jesus.  What  a  won- 
derfully contrived  institution  is  this,  which  by  positive  acts, 
and  ^fhich  no  mode  of  reasoning  could  have  suggested, 
keeps  itself  forever  standing  before  the  eyes  of  men !  Christ 
crucified,  dead,  buried,  risen  again,  ascending,  exhibited  in 
all  its  sacred  acts  of  worship.  In  our  prayers  we  speak  to 
Him,  in  our  praises  we  speak  of  Him,  in  our  positive  acts  of 
worship  commemorate  Him,  and  in  our  immersion  we 
imitate  Him.  How  poor  and  feeble  and  meaningless  do 
sprinkling  and  pouring  represent  Christ  in  any  sense  what- 
ever !  Is  not  my  friend  fully  answered  on  his  objection  to 
this  declaration  of  St.  Paul? 

3rd.  The  other  monumental  act  of  our  Saviour  is 
' '  The  Last  Supper. ? '  This  represents  his '  'broken  body  and 
shed  blood."  The  emblems  are  bread,  which  he  broke  and 
divided  with  his  Disciples  and  reminded  them  how  his  body 
was  to  be  bruised  and  broken,  and  the  wine,  as  he  poured 
it  into  the  cup  and  assured  them,  in  like  manner  must  his 
own  blood  be  spilled  for  the  redemption  of  sinful  man.  He 


65 


notified  them  as  often  as  they  did  this,  (i.e.)  engaged  in  this 
Holy  exercise,  they  commemorated  his  suffering  and  death. 
So  we  are  commanded  to  observe  the  Sabbath  day  and 
keep  it  holy;  to  follow  Him  in  baptism,  emblematical  of 
his  burial  and  resurrection,  as  well  as  to  commemorate  his 
death  before  the  world  by  often  assembling  ourselves  to- 
gether around  His  table.  • 

2.  "The  baptism  of  Christ,"  page  88,  of  the  "Armor/' 
Dr.  H.  says:  " 'Following  Christ  into  the  water,'  'Going 
down  into  the  liquid  grave,'  'Being  buried  with  the 
Savior  beneath  Jordan's  rolling  waves,'  are  clap-trap 
words  of  much  sound  but  little  sense.  If  you  follow  Christ 
strictly  in  baptism  you  must  wait  till  you  are  thirty  years 
old,  for  he  was  not  baptized  until  he  had  reached  that  age. 
What  was  the  design  of  Christ's  baptism  ?  Christ  furnishes 
the  answer:  'It  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness.' 
To  fulfil  righteousness  is  to  be  obedient  to  law.  This  law 
was  not  the  moral,  but  the  law  respecting  the  High  Priest- 
hood. The  baptism  of  Christ  was  the  public,  formal  inau- 
guration and  consecration  of  Him  to  His  priestly  ministry. 
The  consecration  of  Aaron  to  the  High  Priesthood  was  by 
washing,  anointing  and  consecration.  Observe  how  this 
typical  law  was  completely  fulfilled  by  Christ.  1st  .  He  was 
washed  by  baptism.  (Could  not  quite  get  Him  sprinkled 
here,  but  washed  Him  this  time.)  2nd.  He  was  anointed 
by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Bt»&.  And  then  consecrated  to  the 
priestly  office.  Thus  we  see  that  Christ  was  a  High  Priest. 
That  He  was  called  of  God  to  this  office  as  was  Aaron. 
That  He  was  ordained  and  consecrated  to  the  office  of  High 
Priest  for  ever  more,  that  He  might  offer  both  gifts  and 
sacrifices  for  sin." 

Now  I  have  here  given  the  reader  the  benefit  of  Dr.  Hud- 
son's almost  entire  chapter  on  "The  Baptism  of  Christ.'" 
It  is  truly  a  logical  curiosity.  Here  our  friend  is  perfectly 
at  sea,  without  compass,  rudder  or  ballast.  He  sets  on1 
by  saying,  "Following  Christ  into  the  water,"  "Going 


66 

down  into  the  liquid  grave,"  "Being-  buried  with  the 
Savior,"  &c,  "  are  clap-trap  words  of  much  sound  and  little 
sense*."  He  finds  it  easier  to  ridicule  the  plain  teachings  of 
the  Bible  than  to  reply  to  arguments  which  he  cannot  re- 
fute. He  then  runs  off,  away  from  the  simple  narrative  of 
this  sublime  act  of  Christ,  and  talks  about  "  Aaron  "  and 
the  "Priesthood," and  the  "Holy  Ghost,"  says  Christ  was 
"washed  by  baptism,"  and  then  "consecrated  to  his  priest- 
ly office."  Let  us  come  back  and  see  how  the  Evangelists 
talk  about  Christ's  Baptism.  Matt.  III.  "Then  comet  h 
Jesus  from  Gallilee  to  Jordan  unto  John  to  be  baptized  of  * 
.  him .  But  John  forbade  Him ,  saying  I  have  need  to  be  bap- 
tized of  thee,  and  comest  thou  to  me  ?  And  Jesus  answer- 
ing said  unto  him,  Suffer  it  to  be  so  now:  for  thus  it  be- 
rometh  us  to  fulfill  all  righteousness.  Then  he  suffered 
Him .  And  Jesus  when  He  was  baptized ,  went  up  straight- 
way out  of  the  water,  "  So  also  Mark  1-9,  "Jesus  came 
from  Nazareth  of  Galilee,  a  nd  was,  baptized  of  John  in  Jor- 
dan. And  straightway  coining  up  out  of  the  water"  &e. 
How  plain  is  this  language.  Dr.  Hudson's  fiat-headed  In- 
dian could  easily  comprehend  its  meaning.  Nothing  here 
about  Aaron  and  the  High  Priesthood,  not  the  least  inti- 
mation of  pouring  or  sprinkling.  These  passages  are  so 
obvious  that  it  ought  not  to  require  an  additional  word  to 
satisfy  every  reader  that  Christ  the  Redeemer  was  immers- 
ed. Turn  and  rea  d  the  a  ccount  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  and 
then  read  Dr.  Hudson's  articles  on  these  passages  and  you 
will  see  that  they  are  as  wide  apart  a  s  the  North  and  South 
poles. 

Is  it  reasonable  that  the  Holy  Spirit  should  have  writ- 
ten that  Christ  was  baptized  "  in  Jordan,"  and  that  " He 
vame  up  straightway  out  of  the  water"  that  John  would 
go  to  the  river  Jordan  and  baptize  his  subjects  in  that 
stream,  unless  the  mode  were  immersion?  Surely ,  the  man 
that  can  see  either  sprinkling  our  pouring  in  this  transac- 
tion is  unwilling  to  see  the  truth.    When  Pedo-Baptists 


67 


endeavor  to  get  round  this  overwhelming  truth  of  Christ's 
immersion  in  Jordan,  they  tell  us,  as  Dr.  H.  does,  that  it 
was  simply  His  initiation  into  His  priestly  office.  But 
Christ  belonged  to  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  not  to  the  tribe 
of  Levi  to  which  the  priestly  office  was  confined.  Again: 
Christ  wa  s  made  a  priest  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec  and 
not  after  the  order  of  Aaron.  There  is  not  the  least  inti- 
mation that  baptism  had  any  connection  with  the  Priest- 
hood. The  man  who  would  make  Christ's  baptism  a  priest- 
ly consecration  must  deny  the  Scriptures  of  Inspiration. 

The  rite  which  John  administered  to  Christ  was  pre- 
cisely the  one  he  administered  to  all  who  came  to  him  and 
were  baptized  in  the  same  river.  Christ  had  nothing  to  re- 
pent of.  "He  knew  no  sin."  There  wras  no  symbolically 
washing  away  of  sin  in  his  case.  His  baptism  signified  his 
obedience  to  law,  for  he  said:  "Thus  it  beeometh  us  to 
fulfill  all  righteousness,  "  and  as  Dr.  Campbell  has  it,  "To 
satisfy  every  institution.  "  "He  entered  the  stream  and 
was  buried  beneath  the  waters  as  an  emblem  of  his  future 
grave,  "  says  a  distinguished  writer.  Says  another  writer : 
"We  never  find  that  Jesus  speaks  of  himself  in  the  plural 
number,  and  it  must  therefore  be  allowed  that  here  he 
meant  John  and  all  his  followers.  'It  beeometh  us'  to 
walk  in  all  his  ordinances  and  commands,  to  follow  his  ex- 
ample in  going  down  into  the  water,  and  not  say  to  our- 
selves, some  other  way  will  do  as  well.  " 

Whitsins  says:  "Our  Lord  would  be  baxrtized  that  He 
might  conciliate  authority  to  John :  that  by  His  own  ex- 
ample He  might  commend  and  sanctify  our  baptism ;  that 
by  . His  baptism  He  might  represent  the  future  condition 
both  of  Himself  and  His  followers:  first  humble,  then  glori- 
ous; noAv  mean  and  low,  then  glorious  and  exalted;  that 
represented  by  immeksion,  this  by  emeksion— and  finally 
to  declare  by  His  voluntary  submission  to  baptism,  that  He 
would  not  delay  the  delivering  up  of  Himself  to  be  immersed 
in  the  torrents  of  hell,  yet  with  a  certain  faith  and  hope  of 


68 


emerging.  "  This  beautiful  and  impressive  sentence  is  the 
language  of  one  of  the  most  learned  and  pious  Pedo-Bap- 
tist  writers  who  ever  lived. 

Dr.  Hudson  may  talk  about  "Following  Christ  into 
the  water,  "  "  Going  down  into  the  liquid  grave.  "  &c,  as 
•'clap-trap  words  of  much  sound  but  little  sense,  "  yet  he 
may  find  it  a  Herculean  task  to  convince  the  pious  reader 
of  the  New  Testament  ,  unbiased  with  party  zeal,  that  it  is 
not  his  duty  to  follow  the  example  of  Christ  by  "  going 
down  into  the  water.  " 

Dr.  Hudson  may  go  on  and  talk  about  the  High  Priest- 
hood, the  Levites  and  the  Rabbis  and  Aaron,  and  all  that, 
to  draw  the  mind  of  his  readers  from  this  simple  narrative 
of  our  Savior's  baptism  in  the  river  Jordan.  He  may,  like 
the  scuttle  fish,  muddy  the  waters  in  which  to  make  his  es- 
<  *ape,  but  all  in  vain ;  he  is  caught  in  his  own  devices;  for  while 
he  denies  that  Christ  was  immersed,  he  is  not  quite  brave 
enough  to  affirm  that  he  was  either  sprinkled  or  poured. 
He  rather  inclines  to  a  new  mode,  for,  says  he,  "  He  was 
washed  by  baptism,*'  tho?  he  does  not  say  whether  He 
washed  Himself  or  whether  John  did  it.  But  is  it  not 
strange  that  Jesus  should  travel  such  a  great  distance  to 
get  to  John  just  to  have  a  little  water  applied  to  him?  He 
was  in  the  city  of  Nazareth,  (see  Mark  1,  9,)  in  Gallilee,  a 
distance  of  many  miles  from  Jordan ;  it  required  a  journey 
of  three  days  to  reach  the  place  where  John  was  baptizing 
in  Bethabara.— John  1-28.  See  our  Savior  proceeding  on 
his  long  journey  to  reach  the  river  Jordan,  to  make  an  ex- 
hibition of  Himself  before  the  multitude  in  the  act  of  bap- 
tism, and  to  proclaim  to  the  world  his  mission  on  earth. 
How  sublime  the  scene !  The  Son  of  God,  the  Lord  of  heav- 
en, the  righteous  Judge  of  the  last  day,  the  author"  of  our 
salvation,  the  giver  of  eternal  life,  standing  before  his  ser- 
vant on  the  banks  of  the  beautiful  river  of  so  many  remark- 
able events,  and  demanding  baptism  at  his  hands !  John 
Saw  Him  approaching  and  called  out :  "  Behold  the  Lamb 


69 

of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world ! ' '  He  knew 
big  Master  at  once,  but  was  astonished  to  hear  Him  de- 
mand that  He.  too,  must  be  plunged  in  Jordan's  waters, 
that  John  must  administer  the  ordinance  to  Him  as  he  was 
doing  to  all  who  professed  faith  in  Him,  ^confessing  their 
sins.  "  "But  John  forbade  Him,  saving,  I  have  need  to  be 
baptized  of  Thee."  Still  he  must  yield  to  the  command, 
"Suffer  it  to  be  so  now.  "  "  And  Jesus,  when  he  was  bap- 
tized, went  up  straightway  out  of  the  water.  "  A  voice 
from  heaven  is  heard ;  His  Father  owns  His  Son  in  this  His 
first  act  of  humiliation :  the  people  look  on  in  wonder  as 
they  hear  the  voice:  "This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  T 
am  well  pleased. ?? 

Ah,  reader,  have  you  not  witnessed  many  similar  scenes 
at  the  baptismal  waters?  Often  on  such  solemn  occasions 
have  we  witnessed  the  falling  tears  of  the  spectators,  even 
from  the  hardest-hearted,  at  the  sight  of  a  number  of  young 
Christians  going  down  into  the  stream,  there  offering  them- 
selves in  this  impressive  way,  before  the  world,  to  their 
Lord  and  Master.  I  could  here  appeal  to  the  consciences 
of  thousands  of  serious  Christians  who  received  their  first 
convictions  of  the  reality  of  religion.  I  have  witnessed  the 
immersion  of  hundreds  of  professed  believers,  always  at- 
tended with  weeping  and  solemnity  upon  the  part  of  the 
spectators,  but  the  writer  does  not  remember  ever  to  have 
seen -anything  of  the  kind  attendant  upon  the  sprinkling  of 
babies  or  the  pouring  Avater  upon  adults,  and  it  always  had 
the  appearance  more  of  mockery  than  of  solemnity.  These 
tacts  ought  forever  to  silence  the  charges  of  rxDECEXCYfmm 
our  opponents! 

But  not  to  weary  the  reader  we  will  now  notice  Dr. 
Hudson's  next  Article : 

3rd.  "Johx  Baptizixg  ix  Jordan,"  Page  89.  1st. 
•'It  is  believed,"  says  Dr.  H.,  "that  immersing-  persons  in 
Jordan  was  altogether  impracticable."  Our  author  then 
proceeds  to  show  that  here  there  was  too  much  water  to 


70 

perform  the  ordinance  by  immersion;  that  the  river  was 
too  deep.  He  quotes  Thorn,  Yolney,  Shaw  and  others  to 
prove  that  Jordan's  waters  were  too  rapid  and  dangerous 
for  immersion.  2nd.  He  says:  "  Judging  then,  from  the 
places  chosen  and  the  fonts  constructed  by  our  opponents, 
and  indeed  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  ( unless  men  and 
women  in  John's  time  were  twice  as  tall  as  at  the  present 
day ! )  I  contend  that  clipping  persons  in  the  Jordan  was 
altogether  impracticable,  and  unhesitatingly  conclude 
that  they  were  only  affused  or  sprinkled  with  the  water 
of  it." 

Our  friend  is  exceedingly  unreasonable  in  the  manage- 
ment of  this  controversy.  He  insisted  that  the  three  thou- 
sand could  not  have  been  immersed  at  Jerusalem  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost.  Why?  Because  water  was  too  scarce ; 
there  was  no  river  there.  So  also,  in  the  case  of  Paul 
and  the  jailer,  and  Cornelius,  immersion  could  not  have 
l>een  the  mode  in  those  places,  for  there  were  no  streams 
there,  not  enough  at  Jerusalem  for  a  "  traveler  to  moisten 
his  finger.1''  And  now  when  he  comes  to  John,  baptizing  in 
the  river  Jordan,  he  would  have  his  readers  believe  there 
was  too  much  water,  too  deep  for  baptismal  purposes,  ex- 
cept by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  unless  the  men  and  women 
were  all  giants  in  those  days,  i.  e.  "  twice  as  tall  as  they  are 
now."  So  if  there  is  no  mention  of  a  ''  river  "  in  the  bap- 
tismal narrative  in  the  Scriptures,  immersion  is  out  of  the 
question,  " not  water  enough!"  If  the  river  Jordan  is 
named  the  same  cry  of  no  immersion  is  heard,  too  much 
-  water."  So  that,  according  to  the  logic  of  our  friend,  a 
scarcity  of  water  and  an  abundance  of  water  prove  the 
.same  thing.  How  are  we  to  meet  such  silly  arguments? 
Why  is  not  a  little  common  sense  brought  to  bear  on  the 
minds  of*  men  engaged  in  religious  controversy?  Our 
opponents  are  hard  to  please.  Like  the  Jewish  children  in 
the  markets,  "If  we  pipe  to  them  they  will  not  dance;  if 
we  mourn  they  will  not  lament."   Why,  we  ask  in  all  can- 


71 


do*,  should  Dr.  H.  admit  that  immersion  is  held  by  the 
Methodists  to  be  "equally  valid  with  pouring  and  sprink- 
ling," and  yet  labor  so  hard  to  prove  that  it  is  not  recog- 
nized in  the  Bible  ?  Surely  if  men  would  only  divest  them- 
selves of  prejudice,  make  truth  their  guiding  principle. 
Christianity  would  not  be  rent  and  torn  by  factions  and 
parties  to  the  damage  of  our  common  religion. 

The  learned  and  pious  Dr.  G.  Campbell,  says  that  John 
baptized  (immersed)  Christ  in  Jordan,  (en  Jordane)  and 
adds :  "It  is  to  be  regretted  that  we  have  so  much  evidence 
that  even  good  and  learned  men  allow  their  judgment  to 
be  warped  by  the  sentiments  and  customs  of  the  sect  which 
they  prefer."  How  true!  It  is  this  spirit  of  party  zeal 
which  is  the  fruitful  source  of  the  great  mass  of  error,  and 
which  causes  our  Methodist  brethren  to  cling  to  it  with 
undying  energy. 

Another  Pedo-Baptist  writer  of  distinction,  Dr.  Adam 
Clarke,  says:  "The  baptism  of  John  was  by  plunging  the 
body." 

Dr.  Macknight,  that  great  Presbyterian,  writes: 
"Christ  was  buried  under  water  by  John." 

Lieutenant  Lynch,  of  the  American  navy,  about  the 
year  1849,  made  a  survey  of  the  river  Jordan  from  its 
source  to  where  it  empties  into  the  Dead  Sea,  and  soon 
thereafter  published  the  most  authentic  account  ever  given 
of  that  sacred  river,  which  doubtless  my  friend,  Dr.  H.,has 
read.  I  make  the  following  extract  from  that  interesting 
book.  The  bathing  of  the  pilgrims  in  the  Jordan  presents 
a  scene  so  strangely  wild  and  exciting  as  to  justify  the  in- 
sertion of  the  following  graphic  description  of  it : 

"At  8,  a.  m.,  we  were  aroused  by  the  intelligence  that 
the  pilgrims  were  coming.  Rising  in  haste  we  beheld  thous- 
nnds  of  torchlights,  with  a  dark  mass  beneath,  moving 
rapidly  over  the  hills.  Striking  our  tents  we  hurriedly  re- 
moved them  with  all  our  effects  to  the  left.  We  had  scarce- 
ly finished  when  they  were  upon  us;  men,  women  and  chil- 


72 


dren,  mounted  on  camels,  horses,  mules  and  donkeys, 
rushed  impetuously  by  towards  the  bank.  *  *  *  *  The 
party  which  had  disturbed  us  was  the  advance  guard  of 
the  great  body  of  pilgrims  which  was  thought  t  o  be  about 
eight  thousand.  At  5,  just  at  the  dawn  of  day,  the  last 
made  its  appearance,  coming  over  the  crest  of  a  high  ridge, 
in  one  tumultuous  and  eager  throng.  In  all  the  wild  haste 
of  a  disorderly  rout,  Copts,  Russians,  Poles,  Armenians 
Greeks  and  Syrians,  from  all  parts  of  Asia,  from  Europe, 
from  Africa,  and  from  far  distant  America,  on  they  came ; 
men,  women  and  children  of  every  age  and  in  every  variety 
of  costume;  talking,  screaming,  shouting  in  almost  every 
known  language  under  the  sun.  *  *  *  Dismounting  in 
haste,  and  disrobing  with  precipitation,  they  rushed  down 
the  bank,  and  threw  themselves  into  the  stream.  Each 
one  plunged  himself,  or  was  clipped  by  another,  three  times 
below  the  surface,  in  honor  of  the  Trinity,  and  then  filled  a 
bottle,  or  some  other  utensil,  from  the  river.  The  bathing 
dress  of  many  of  the  pilgrims  was  a  white  gown  with  a 
black  cross  upon  it.  Most  of  them,  as  soon  as  they  were 
dressed,  cut  branches  of  the  agnus  cast  us,  or  willow,  and 
dipping  them  in  the  consecrated  stream,  bare  them  away 
as  memorials  of  their  visit.''  So  Ave  see  Lieutenant  Lynch, 
who  was  not  writing  a  book  about  Church  ordinances,  and 
who  sa  w  with  his  own  eyes  this  river  so  much  in  my  friend's 
way,  forever  silences  the  objection  to  its  being  too  deep  for 
John's  baptism.  For  the  location  above  described  is  at 
the  river  where  it  is  supposed  those  grand  scenes  took  place 
in  the  time  of  our  Savior. 

If,  as  Lieutenant  Lynch  states,  men,  women  and  chil- 
dren could  plunge  themselves  into  the  river,  thousands  at 
the  same  time  and  place,  and  "dip"  themselves  or  others 
in  its  waters,  how  does  my  friend  get  this  wild  notion  that 
the  ordinance  of  baptism  by  immersion  could  not  have  been 
performed,  "  unless  people  in  those  days  were  twice  as  tall 
as  they  are  now?  " 


7a 


One  or  two  more  authorities  wiM  conclude  this  part  of 
the  argument. 

Tertullian,  who  lived  near  the  time  of  the  Apostle  John, 
expressly  mentions  that  the  people  were  dipped  hyJohn  in 
Jordan. 

Olshousen,  the  great  German  Reformed  commentator, 
says  that  John  baptized  in  Jordan,  "  because  deep  water, 
adapted  for  immersion,  was  there/  ' 

We  might  add  many  more  concessions  of  the  most  cele- 
brated writers  both  of  ancient  and  modern  times  who  do 
not  hesitate  to  declare  that  John's  baptism  was  by  immer- 
sion. But  our  friend  Dr.  H.,  and  many  who  blindly  follow 
his  method  of  reasoning,  reject  the  testimony,  however 
strong  and  unanswerable,  which  tends  to  subvert  their  own 
unfounded  notions."  "  Convinced  against  their  will, 
they  are  of  the  same  opinion  still."  It  is  useless,  therefore, 
to  say  another  word  about  the  deep  waters  of  Jordan.  We 
proceed  then  to  his  next  position,  which  is  this  : 

3rd.  "  That  John's  baptism  was  not  by  immersion  is 
clear  from  the  vast  number  baptized  by  him ;  that  the 
population  of  Palestine  at  the  time  of  John's  ministry, 
could  not  be  less  than  six  millions."  He  further  argues 
from  the  Bible:  " There  went  out  unto  him  all  the  land  of 
Judea,  and  they  of  Jerusalem,  and  all  the  region  round 
about  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins."  From  this  he  con- 
cludes that  John  baptized  three  millions,  one-half  the  pop- 
ulation; that  John's  ministry  lasted  only  about  ten 
months.  He  allows  "six  hours  a  days  and  six  days  a  week 
for  baptizing,"  and  upon  this  calculation,  shows  that  John 
had  to  baptize  two  thousand  and  two  hundred  each  hour. 
•:  And  this  calculation  shows  the  utter  impossibility  of  its 
being  done  by  immersion."  Now  if  the  reader  will  turn  and 
read  from  page  159  to  172  in  the  Methodist  Discipline  he 
will  discover  that  it  requires  a  much  longer  period  of  time 
for  a  Methodist  minister  to  sprinkle  a  child  or  man  than  it 
does  for  a  Baptist  minister  to  immerse  his  candidate;  he 


74 


will  there  see  that  the  ceremony  required  for  the  child  taken 
up  five  pages,  and  for  adults  eight  pages ;  he  will  see  a  long- 
list  of  questions  asked  of  the  candidate  commencing  with, 
"  Dost  thou  renounce  the  devil  and  all  his  works,  the  vain 
pomp  and  glory  of  the  world,  with  all  covetous  desires  of 
the  same,  and  the  carnal  desires  of  the  flesh  ,  so  that  thou 
will  not  follow  or  be  led  by  them?  "  Answek.  "  I  renounce 
them  all,"  and  so  on,  too  long  to  repeat  here;  and  some 
half  dozen  different  forms  of  prayer  are  offered  by  the  min- 
ister, including  the  reading  of  portions  of  the  New 
Testament.  If  John  used  anything  like  this  form  of 
ceremony  before  he  could  sprinkle  the  people,  the  objection 
as  to  time  in  baptizing  Dr.  Hudson's  "three  millions"  will 
come  with  tenfold  more  force  against  his  theory  than 
against  the  Baptists. 

If,  as  Dr.  H.  says,  it  was  utterly  impossible  to  be  done 
by  immersion,  how  is  it  possible  for  him  to  show  that  it 
could  be  done  in  any  "  decent  "  manner  by  sprinkling? 
Some  of  Dr.  Hudson's  friends  get  over  the  difficulty  in  this 
way.  Dr.  Guise,  for  instance,  when  speaking  of  the  multi- 
tude baptized  by  our  Lord's  harbinger,  says:  "It  seems 
to  me,  therefore,  that  the  people  stood  in  ranks  near  to  or 
just  in  the  edge  of  the  river,  and  John  passing  along  before 
them  cast  water  upon  their  heads  or  faces  with  his  hands, 
or  some  proper  instrument ;  by  which  means  he  might  easi- 
ly baptize  many  thousand  in  a  day."  (See  Mr.  Martin's 
letters  to  Mr.  Horsey,  page  145-6.) 

Dr.  Arch.  Hale  gives  his  sanction  to  Dr.  Guise's  plan ; 
so  does  Horsey,  who  also  says :  "I  presume  that  the  mul- 
titude stood  in  ranks  at  the  brink,  or  just  in  the  edge  of  the 
river,  while  the  minister  sprinkled  or  poured  the  running 
warter  upon  them."  (See  Infant  Baptism,  Stated  and  De- 
tended,  page  20.) 

In  this  way  the  calculation  made  by  Dr.  H.  that  ''two 
thousand  and  two  hundred  must  be  baptized  each  hourr 
for  six  hours  in  each  of  six  days  in  the  week  and  for  ten 


75 


successive  months,  the  end  of  John's  ministry,  to  complete 
his  baptism  of  the  three  millions. ' '  Dr.  Hudson  says  it  was 
"utterly  impossible  for  it  to  have  been  done  by  immersion, " 
and  his  brother,  Dr.  Guise,  shows  us  how  it  could  have 
been  done  by  sprinkling.  The  fact  is,  I  think  Dr.  H.  did  not 
see  into  what  difficulty  he  was  running  in  making  out  this 
vast  number  as  an  objection  to  immersion,  but  breaks  down 
without  giving  us  any  intimation  how  it  could  be  done  by 
sprinkling  and  left  it  to  the  reader's  imagination.  And 
how  so  grave  an  author  as  Dr.  Guise  should  give  such  a 
puerile  and  farcical  turn  to  the  conduct  of  the  Forerunner 
of  Christ  when  administering  a  solemn  ordinance  of  divine 
worship  is  a  matter  of  wonder.  Nor  can  we  account  for  its 
being  approved  by  others,  but  on  a  supposition  that  the}' 
feel  themselves  embarrassed,  when  attempting  to  reconcile 
their  own  practice  with  the  natural  meaning  of  the  language 
of  the  Scripture. 

"  If,  "  says  a  great  writer,  "  the  credit  of  sprinkling  can- 
not be  supported  without  burlesquing  the  Sacred  history 
and  exposing  in  this  manner  one  of  the  most  exalted  hu- 
man characters  to  the  ridicule  of  the  world,  it  ought  forever 
to  sink  into  oblivion."  Look  at  the  picture  they  draw  of 
the  son  of  Zacharias,  who  was  sent  to  prepare  the  way  of 
the  Lord.  See  him  standing  in  the  edge  of  the  river,  and, 
with  his  naked  hand,  a  squirt,  a  brush,  or  a  bunch  of  hys- 
sop, sprinkling  the  multitude  as  they  "stood  in  ranks" 
along  the  bank — "two  thousand  and  two  hundred  every 
hour  in  the  day  for  six  hours,  and  six  days  in  every  Aveek 
for  ten  months,"  for  this  is  Dr.  Hudson's  calculation. 
Does  my  grave  and  intelligent  Christian  friend  believe  ajiy 
such  farce  ? 

According  to  these  authors,  there  was  not  half  the  so- 
lemnity in  John's  baptism,  that  there  is  in  that  annual 
festival  of  the  Romish  Church  called  "The  Benediction  of 
Horses."  Dr.  Middleton  says  that  "this  is  always  celebra- 
ted with  much  solemnity  in  the  month  of  January  when  the 


76 


inhabitants  of  the  city  and  neighborhood,  send  up  their 
horses  and  other  animals  to  the  cfonvent  of  St.  Anthony, 
near  St.  Mary  the  Great,  where  a  priest  in  his  surplice  at 
the  church  door,  sprinkles  with  his  brush  all  the  animals 
singly  as  they  are  presented  to  him,  and  receives  from  each 
owner  a  gratuity- in  proportion  to  their  Zeal  and  ability. 
Amongst  the  rest  I  had  my  own  horse  blest  at  the  expense 
of  about  eighteen  pence  of  our  money,  as  well  to  satisfy  my 
own  curiosity  as  to  humor  the  coachman." 

So  we  see  the  priest  in  his  white  robe  appears  to  act 
with  more  care,  more  solemnity  than  the  servant  of  God  in 
his  hairy  garments.  For  the  priest,  tho'  paid  for  his  labor 
at  so  much  per  head,  cautiously  sprinkles  the  cattle  one  by 
one,  while  John,  ( according  to  Dr.  Guise ),  beingina  hurry 
to  finish  his  blessing,  "passing  along  before  the  multitude 
as  they  stood  in  ranks,  cast  water  upon  their  heads  or  faces 
with  his  hands,  or  some  proper  instrument,  by  which  means 
he  might  baptize  many  thousand  in  a  day !"  And  accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Hudson's  calculation  he  would  have  to  "ap- 
ply" the  wTater  to  thirteen  thousand  and  two  iiundred 
every  day  ( Sundays  excepted )  for  ten  months !  Now  how 
many  ranks  deep  the  people  stood  these  authors  have  not 
informed  us,  yet  there  was  more  than  one,  for  they  use  the 
plural,  ranks,  and  if  the  water  was  cast  on  them  by  some 
"instrument "  or  even  with  the  hands,  scooped  up  from  the 
running  river,  it  would  have  been  very  unequally  divided 
among  the  candidates,  some  receiving  more,  some  less,  and 
the  rear  rank  scarcely  any  at  all.  But  our  authors  say 
nothing  about  the  children  in  this  grea  t  multitude — the  in- 
fants. Why  are  they  silent  on  this  point  and  at  this  par- 
ticular time?  Why  should  they  leave  out  the  infants  here, 
and  so  strenuously  insist  they  were  in  the  jailer's  family, 
Lydia's,  Cornelius'  and  others  ?  It  is  true  the  infants  could 
not  stand  in  ranks,  nor  could  the  administrator  take  them 
into  his  arms  one  by  one,  for  according  to  their  representa- 
tion, time  would  not  permit;  but  then  the  parents  could 


77 


take  them  in  their  arms,  so  as  to  receive  some  of  the  water 
as  it  was  £  c  cast ' '  upon  them .  Why  they  are  so  silent  about 
the  children  in  this  vast  multitude  we  cannot  imagine. 

Then  our  Savior  came  to  John  as  he  was  baptizing  in 
the  river  Jordan,  and  demanded  baptism  for  himself.  Will 
our  authors  inform  us  whether  he,  too,  Was  standing  in  the 
edge  of  the  water  in  the  front  rank  and  had  some  of  the 
water  thrown  into  his  face,  as  it  was  cast  upon  the  multitude 
from  a  brush,  a  bunch  of  hyssop,  or  some  instrument  in 
the  hands  of  John?  For  Dr.  H.  asserts  he  could  not  have 
been  immersed  in  the  river  Jordan,  for  the  water  was  too 
deep,  unless  both  the  Savior  and  the  administrator  were 
"twice  as  tall  as  men  are  now." 

To  place  Dr.  Hudson's  argument  in  its  proper  light  of 
Jordan's  having  too  much  water,  we  will  use  Dr.  Mills' 
anecdote  in  his  reply  to  Dr.  Summers.  He  says :  "Diedrich 
Knickerbocker,  in  one  of  the  interior  towns  of  New  York, 
is  reported  to  have  cut  a  large  hole  under  his  barn  door  for 
the  large  cat  to  pass  through  and  a  small  hole  by  its  side 
to  give  access  to  the  little  cat,  thinking,  I  suppose— since 
you  have  thrown  light  upon  it — that  the  larger  orifice  was 
altogether  too  large  for  the  little  cat  to  pass  through !  " 

But  we  will  not  pursue  this  ridiculous  farce  any  farther. 
When  men  are  pressed  with  plain  Scripture,  which  militates 
against  principles  instilled  in  their  minds  from  infancy, 
they  resort  to  all  sorts  of  inventions  rather  than  surrender 
their  predjudices  to  truth.  Let  us  now  turn  back  and  see 
the  natural,  plain  and  easy  import  of  this  matter  of  John's 
baptism  which  troubles  our  Methodist  brethren  so  much. 
The  Evangelists  say:  "Jerusalem  and  all  Judea  and  all  the 
region  round  about  Jordan  went  to  him  and  were  bap- 
tized," but  they  do  not  say  all  the  people  went  ;  it  was  the 
places,  that  is,  each  place  was  there  represented.  Just  as 
we  say,  "North  Carolina  voted  for  Gov.  Scales  in  the  last 
election,"  yet  who  does  not  know  that  only  a  small  part  of 
the  inhabitants  voted  for  him?   Just  so  Matthew  says, 


78 


"Jerusalem  came,"  that  is,  a  great  many  people  from  Je- 
rusalem and  Judea,  and  the  country  round  about  Jordan 
came;  these  places  were  fully  represented.  Besides,  John 
did  not  baptize  all  who  came.  He  positively  refused  the 
Pharisees  and  the  Sadducees,  and  they  composed  a  large 
majority  of  the  Jewish  nation .  Where  Dr.  Hudson  gets  his 
idea  that  John  baptized  three  millions  we  know  not ;  most 
certainly  nowhere  in  the  Bible. 

Again  the  sacred  writer  says  that  "  Jesus  made  and 
baptized  more  disciples  than  John,"  and  when  the  disciples 
were  gathered  together  after  His  death  there  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  a  great  multitude.  For  although  great 
multitudes  came  to  John  and  multitudes  followed  Christ, 
yet  comparatively  few  brought  forth  fruit  to  justify  bap- 
tism. Why,  then,  should  men  of  sense  go  off  into  such  wild 
imagination  and  talk  about  the  impossibility  of  one  man's 
baptizing  three  millions  in  ten  months  just  to  get  clear  of 
the  idea  of  immersion,  and  still  claim  that  it  is  "  equally 
valid  with  sprinkling  or  pouring?  "  The  Holy  Ghost  says 
John  immersed  them,  (for  the  word  itself  in  the  original  lan- 
guage means  that,  and  nothing  else )  and  it  is  not  for  us 
poor  mortals  to  say  that  was  "  impossible7'  and  then  make 
ourselves  ridiculous  in  the  eyes  of  the  world  in  trying  to 
maintain  our  false  assumptions. 

Prof.  Wm.  Smith,  in  his  New  Bible  Dictionary,  which 
lies  before  me,  says :  "  The  language  of  the  New  Testament 
and  of  the  primitive  fathers  sufficiently  points  to  immer- 
sion as  the  common  mode  of  baptism."  This  is  high  au- 
thority from  a  Pedo-Baptist,  and  at  present  Classical  Ex- 
aminer in  the  University  of  London  and  editor  of  the  Dic- 
tionary of  Greek  and  Roman  Antiquities.  Is  not  our  friend 
fully  answered  on  these  points? 

The  next  position  our  author  takes  is  that  ''John's 
baptism  is  not  Christian  baptism . "—Pages  90  and  91. 

Here  we  would  remark:  Unless  John  really  immersed, 
why  do  our  Methodist  brethren  so  diligently  labor  to  prove 


that  John's  baptism  was  not  Christian?  Or  why  are  they 
so  anxious  to  establish  that  the  baptism  of  our  Savior  was 
not  an  example  for  us  unless  He  were  truly  immersed? 
The}'  would  never  be  troubled  a,bout  taking  Jesus  as  our 
example  if  it  did  not  result  in  immersion. 

As  this  last  topic  has  but  little  to  do  with  our  present 
discussion,  we  need  not  spend  much  time  in  noticing  it  here. 

"  John's  baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism,"  says 
Dr.  Hudson,  and  yet  he  does  not  attempt  to  give  us  one 
word  of  information  as  to  the  object  of  his  baptism.  If  it 
be  not  Christian  baptism  the  reader  would  naturally  in- 
quire,: What  was  it  then  ?  If  John  baptized  Christ  what 
else  could  it  be  but  Christian  baptism  ?  Is  not  Christ  the 
author  of  Christianity?  And  did  not  John  live  under  the 
Christian  dispensation?  Mark  calls  his  ministry  "  The  be- 
ginning of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ."  This  was  the  intro- 
duction of  the  New  Testament  dispensation. 

Joseph  Benson,  the  well  known  Methodist  Commenta- 
tor, says:  "The  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  began  with  the 
preaching  and  baptism  of  John  the  Baptist." 

Luke  says:  "The  law  and  the  prophets  were  until 
John;  since  that  time  the  kingdom  of  God  is  preached, 
and  every  man  presseth  into  it." 

Peter,  in  Acts  1-21,  asserts  the  same  truth.  John's 
mission  was  divine.  He. was  "sent  from  God."  He  was 
the  first  Christian  preacher  under  this  new  dispensation. 
"  The  beginning  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God."  John  1-6-7:  "There  was  a  man  sent  from  God 
whose  na  me  was  John-;  the  same  came  to  be  a  witness  of 
the  Light,  that  all  men  through  him  might  believe."  In 
him  was  fulfilled  the  prophesy  of  Isaiah.  Matt.  III-8: 
"  For  this  is  he  that  was  spoken  of  by  the  prophet  Esaias, 
saying,  The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness.  Prepare 
ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,  make  his  paths  straight."  John 
preached  the  baptism  of  repentance  to  all  the  people  of 
Israel,  Acts  XTII-2L    "Then  went  out  to  him  Jerusalem; 


80 


and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  found  about  Jordan,  and 
were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins," 
Matt.  III-5-6.  You  see  he  baptized  none  who  would  not 
"confess  their  sins."  The  Savior  had  none  to  confess. 
"He  knew  no  sin,"  therefore  John  baptized  Him,  also,  in 
Jordan,  in  obedience  to  His  command.  The  great  object 
of  John's  ministry  was  to  "prepare  the  way  of  the  Lord,  " 
to  proclaim  repentance,  to  announce  the  immediate  ap- 
proach of  the  long  promised  Messiah.  His  commission 
was  from  heaven  and  he  informed  his  hearers  that; the  same 
God  who  sent  him  to  prepare  the  way  of  the  Lord,  "sent 
him  to  baptize  with  water,"  Jonn  1-33,  and  this  too  was 
preparatory  to  the  ministry  of  Christ.  Baptism,  then,  as 
a  divine  institution,  was  unknown  previous  to  the  mission 
of  John. 

Now  hear  what  that  great  commentator,  Matthew 
Henry,  says  about  John:  "See  what  sure  grounds  John 
went  upon  his  ministry  and  baptism.  He  had  a  warrant 
from  heaven  for  what  he  did.  He  did  not  run  without 
sending ;  God  sent  him  to  baptize ;  God  gave  him  both  his 
mission  and  his  message;  both  his  credentials  and  instruc- 
tions," (  Expos,  on  Jno.  1-6-14. )  I  repeat  again :  If  John's 
baptism  was  not  Christian,  it  devolves  on  Dr.  H.  and  his 
Methodist  brethren  to  showr  what  it  was. 

Mr.  Erskine  says:  "John's  baptism  was  termed  the 
baptism  of  repentance,  and  baptism  to  repentance ;  because 
he  required  of  all  whom  he  admitted  to  baptism  a.  profes- 
sion of  repentance  and  exhorted  them  to  such  a  conduct  as 
would  demonstrate  their  repentance  genuine." 

Rev.  Mr.  Scott,  Presbyterian,  says:  "It  does  not  ap- 
pear that  any  but  adults  were  baptized  by  John.  Adult 
JeAvs,  professing  repentance  and  a  disposition  to  become 
the  Messiah's  subjects,  were  the  only  persons  whom  John 
admitted  to  baptism."   (Comment  on  Matt,  iii-5-6.) 

Mr.  Burkitt :  "John's  baptism  was  the  baptism  of  re- 
pentance of  which  infants  were  incapable."  (Expos,  notes 
on  Matt,  xix-13-15.) 


81 


Now  hear  what  the  Redeemer  says  of  John :  "Fortius 
is  he  of  whom  it  is  written,  Behold,  I  send  my  messenger 
before  thy  face  which  shall  prepare  thy  way  before  thee. 
Verily  I  say  unto  you,  Among  them  that  are  born  of  wo- 
men there  hath  not  arisen  a  greater  than  John  the  Bap- 
tist.' '—(Matt,  xi-10-11 . )  And  now  see  how  He  answers  this 
question  of  John's  baptism:  "And  Jesus  answered  and 
said  unto  them,  I  will  also  ask  you  one  question,  The  bap- 
tism of  John,  was  it  from  heaven,  or  of  men?  Answer  me. 
And  they  reasoned  among  themselves,  saying,  If  we  shall 
say  from  heaven,  he  will  say,  Why  then  did  you  not  believe 
him?  But  if  Ave  shall  say,  of  men  ;  all  the  people  will  stone 
us,  (they  feared  the  people)  for  all  men  counted  John  that 
he  was  a  prophet  indeed.  And  they  answered  and  said  un- 
to Jesus,  "We  cannot  tell.*'— Mark  xi-29. 

Again  we  ask  our  author:  The  baptism  of  John,  was 
it  Christian,  or  was  it  man's  institution?  Will  he  answer? 
The  founder  of  Presbyterianism,  John  Calvin,  shall  an- 
swer :  "  For  myself  I  grant  that  the  baptism  they  had  re- 
ceived was  the  true  baptism  of  John,  and  the  very  same 
with  the  baptism  of  Christ,  but  I  deny  that  they  were  bap- 
tized again." 

Dr.  Knapp  says  that  "the  baptism  of  John  and  the 
Messiah  was  one  and  the  same  institute  of  God  himself; 
that  the  design  was  the  same  inasmuch  as  it  had  the  same 
regard  to  repentance  of  the  candidates  and  their  faith  in 
Christ,  whether  about  to  come,  or  having  already  come." 

But  Dr.  H  says,  page  91:  "John's  baptism  was  not 
initiatory  into  the  Church. It  did  not  admit  them  in- 
to the  Old  Testament  Church,  since  those  who  received  it 
(being  Jews)  were  already  members  of  that  Church  by  cir- 
cumcision .  It  did  not  admit  them  into  the  Christian  Church, 
since  that  Church  had  not  been  established."  He  then  con- 
cludes this  subject  by  saying:  "It  is  rendered  still  more 
evident  from  the  fact  that  Paul  iv-bapti  zed  certain  persons 
at  Ephesus  who  had  received  John's  baptism. "—Acts  19-5. 


82 


He  here  leaves  us  to  conjecture  what  object  the  evangelists 
could  possibly  have  in  saying  anything  at  all  about  the 
baptism  of  John  .  He  says,  "It  was  utterly  impossible  to 
have  been  immersion;  "  he  says  "it  is  certain  that  it  was 
not  Christian  baptism,"  and  he  tells  us  it  had  no  connec- 
tion with  the  Old  Testament  Church ;  that  neither  he  nor 
his  disciples  were  members  of  the  Christian  Church  till  they 
were  re-baptized?  Is  Dr.  Hudson's  conscience  easy  now, 
since  he  has  disposed  of  the  Son  of  Zacharias  in  this  sum- 
mary manner?  Christ  says,  "Among  them  that  are  born 
of  women,  there  hath  not  arisen  a  greater  than  John  the 
Baptist,  "  and  Dr.  Hudson  on  the  other  hand  would  have 
us  believe  that  John  w as  just  nobody  at  all.  Why  should 
a  doctor  of  divinity,  and  one  who  presides  over  so  large 
and  intelligent  a  body  of  Christians,  so  trifle  with  the  word 
of  God? 

It  is  not  necessary  to  detain  the  reader  about  Paul's 
re-baptizing  some  of  John's  disciples;  great  and  learned 
men  of  all  denominations  deny  that  there  was  any  re-bap- 
tism taught  in  the  19th  chapter  of  Acts.  One  thing  is  cer- 
tain, these  persons  were  never  baptized  by  John,  for  he  had 
been  dead  about  twenty-five  years,  as  the  record  shows, 
when  Paul  was  preaching  at  Ephesus.  They  said  they 
were  baptized  "  unto  John's  baptism,"  not  by  John.  John 
could  not  have  baptized  them,  for  they  had  not  even  "so 
much  as  heard,  "  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  while  John,  we  know, 
was  "full  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  taught  the  people  that 
the  Savior  would  baptize  into  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  all 
this  is  foreign  to  the  subject  of  our  discussion,  viz:  The 
proper  mode  of  baptism.  If  the  Scriptures  teach  that 
sprinkling,  or  pouring,  is  the  proper  mode,  then  we  should 
practice  it;  but  if  immersion,  then  we  should  certainly  hold 
to  this,  for  there  can  be  but  one  mode.  "One  Lord,  one 
Faith ,  one  B a  pt i sin .  ' '   Eph .  IV ,  5 . 

We  ask  the  reader  now  to  accompany  us  to  Dr.  Hud- 
son's last  strong-hold  on  page  91  of  the  Methodist  Armor. 


83 

and  carefully  and  impartially  give  us  a  hearing  while  we 
attempt  a  fair  and  candid  review  of  this  his  last  chapter 
as  to  the  mode  of  baptism. 

4th.  "Bapto  and  Baptizo."  Says  he:  "The  argu- 
ment of  the  immersionists  is :  1  My  position  is  that  baptizo 
always  signifies  to  dip,  never  expressing  anything  but 
m  ode.'  '—Dr.  Carson.  He  then  proceeds:  "The  hinge  on 
which  the  whole  argument  turns,  is  that  the  classic  mean- 
ing of  the  terms,  Bapto  and  Baptizo,  is  always  but  one 
thing,  to  dip,  immerse.  Can  this  be  established?  No. 
Let  us  see.  Dr.  Dale,  ( a  learned  divine  of  England )  ren- 
ders Bapto  dip,  fourteen  times ;  dye,  fourteen  times ;  im- 
bue, seven  times;  temper,  onetime;  stain, onetime ;  wash, 
four  times;  moisten,  two  times;  wet,  one  time — forty- 
seven.  Of  these  forty-seven  cases  as  rendered  by  him  we 
have:  1st.  Thirty-three  against  fourteen  for  dip.  2nd.  In 
no  case  was  there  an  immersion,  i.  e.  sinking." 

We  will  pause  here,  and  see  if  this  definition  given  by 
our  friend's  author  will  avail  him  anything  in  establishing 
either  sprinkling  or  pouring.  He  admits  fourteen  of  the 
forty-seven  mean  to  dip,  so  here  there  is  no  dispute,  for  no 
one.can  be  immersed  without  being  dipped.  Thus  far  he  is 
correct.  Next  "dye,  fourteen  times."  He  of  course  has 
reference  here  to  coloring  cloth  and  other  articles,  and  did 
our  friend  never  witness  how  this  is  done?  How  the  old 
lady  dips  her  yarn,  her  cloth  into  the  fluid,  in  order  to  dye 
it?  Can  it  be  done  otherwise?  It  must  be  dipped  deep 
down  into  the  liquid  and  then  raised  out  again,  before  it 
can  be  dyed.  Is  this  not  true?  No  dipping — no  dyeing! 
Here  then  his  own  author  is  in  our  favor  fourteen  times 
more,  which  make  twenty-eight  of  the  forty-seven.  Next 
case.  "  Imbue,  seven  times."  What  does  this  word  imbue 
mean?  Refer  to  the  English  dictionaries,  and  you  will  see 
it  means  nearly  the  same  as  to  dye.  Worcester  says,  "  To 
tinge  deeply— to  dye."  "  Clothes  imbued  with  black  cannot 
afterwards  be  dyed  with  a  ilgtrtercfclbrv"    (  Boyle.)    Why  ? 


84 


Because  it  has  been  dipped  in  coloring  fluid  until  it  is  over- 
whelmed with  black,  so  completely  as  not  to  admit  of  a 
change  of  color.  Again :  we  sometimes  hear  of  the  murder- 
er imbuing  his  hands  in  the  blood  of  his  victim— that  is, 
dipped  in  his  blood,  &c.  So  here  again  we  have  seven  more, 
which  added  to  the  twenty-eight  make  thirty -five  cases  in 
our  favor.  Next.  ' '  Temper,  one  time. ' '  And  how  does  the 
smith  temper  his  iron  or  steel,  unless  he  dips  or  plunges  it 
in  water?  Score  one  more  for  us.  "Stain,  one  time." 
Here,  too,  our  dictionaries  render  this  word  from  the  Latin 
tingOj  to  stain,  to  dye,  to  color,  &c,  conveying  the  same 
idea  in  a  modified  sense,  so  wjiile  we  cannot  clain  this  defi- 
nition on  our  side,  it  certainly  has  no  resemblance  to 
sprinkling  or  pouring.  "Wash,  four  times."  Everybody 
knows  we  cannot  wash  without  immersing  the  object  to  be 
washed  in  the  water.  When  Ave  wash  our  hands,  our 
clothes,  we  dip  them  in  water.  This  gives  us  forty.  '  'Moist- 
en, two  times;"  and  "wet,  onetime."  These  last,  we  ad- 
mit, may  be  accomplished  either  by  being  dipped  or  sprink- 
led. We  dip  a  sponge  in  water  to  moisten  or  wet  it;  we 
also  sprinkle  water  on  clothes  to  moisten  or  Avet  them.  So 
instead  of  fourteen  we  have  forty-three  definitions  of  this 
writer  in  our  favor,  to  four  against  us.  And  it  is  remarka- 
ble that  Dr.  H.  should  bring  out  this  author,  Dr.  Dale,  who 
does  not  give  sprinkling  or  pouring  the  first  time  as  a  defi- 
nition of  this  word  bapto.  Now  take  the  vote— 43  for  im- 
mersion, 4  doubtful,  total  47. 

But  as  Dr.  Hudson  has  selected  the  above  quotation 
from  "Dr.  Dale,"  (which  proves  nothing  in  his  favor),  we 
here  give  him  one  from  Prof.  Moses  Steuart's  learned  work 
upon  this  controverted  subject.  The  reputation  of  this 
learned  professor  among  Pedo-Baptist  scholars  and  di- 
vines is  so  great,  that  Dr.  Rosser,  of  the  Methodist  Church, 
in  his  work  on  baptism,  holds  this  language  concerning 
him :  "The  judgment  of  Prof.  Steuart,  as  a  Biblical  critic, 
is  of  the  highest  reputation  in  the  United  States."  Hereis 


85 

what  he  says :—( see  page  298,)— "What  are  the  classical 
meanings  of  bapto  and  baptizo?  Both  these  words  mean 
to  dip,  to  immerse,  to  plunge  into  anything  liquid.  All 
lexicographers  of  any  note,  and  critics,  are  agreed  in  this." 
And  again  on  page  288 :  "The  original  etymological  root 
of  baptizo  and  bapto,  and  also  of  the  nouns  and  adjectives 
kindred  with  them,  appears  plainly  to  be  the  Greek  mono- 
syllable bap,  the  leading  and  original  meaning  of  which 
seems  to  have  been  dipping,  immersing,  plunging,  soaking, 
drenching  in  some  liquid ;  and  as  clearly  associated  with 
this,  the  idea  of  dyeing  or  coloring,  since  this  was  done  by 
dipping.  The  precise  difference  between  bapto  and  baptizo 
is,  that  while  they  both  agree  in  one  common  and  original, 
meaning,  that  of  immersing  or  plunging,  usage  has  em- 
ployed bapto  to  express  the  idea  of  coloring  as  well  as  the 
idea  of  dipping  or  plunging,  while  baptizo  is  not  employed 
in  the  additional  sense  of  coloring."  This  is  the  language 
of  a  most  Eminent  scholar,  and  as  Dr.  Rosser  says,  of  the 
"highest  reputation  as  a  critic  in  the  United  States." 

Now  you  will  notice  that  Prof.  Stuart  says  baptizo 
and  its  derivatives  express  only  the  idea  of  dipping  or  im- 
mersion. Now  if  we  refer  to  the  Greek  Testament  we  will 
find  that  this  is  the  word  the  Apostles  invariably  used  in 
every  instance,  and  which  is  expressed  in  English  by  the 
verb  baptize.  Matt.  3-11 ;  Mark  1-8 ;  Luke  3-16 ;  John 
1-26;  Mark  1-4;  John  1-33;  I  Cor.  1-17.  So  if  these 
passages  had  been  translated,  like  all  the  other  words,  in 
the  original  tongue,  and  the  prepositions  connected  with 
them,  according  to  Professor  Stewart,  they  would  read 
thus :  "I, indeed, immerse  you  772  water, "  (not  with  water,, 
as  we  shall  show  hereafter.)  Again:  "I  indeed  have  im- 
mersed you  in  water."  "  John  answered  saying  unto  them 
all,  I  indeed  immerse  you  in  water."  "John  answered 
saying,  I  immerse  in  water."  "John  did  immerse  in  the 
wilderness."  "And  I  knew  him  not,  but  he  that  sent"  me 
to  immerse  in  water."   "For  Christ  sent  me  not  to  im- 


86 


merse,  but  to  preach  the  gospel."  We  have  taken  up  these 
passages  as  they  come  in  order  according  to  the  above 
references.  If  King  James'  translators  had  not  been  over- 
ruled, while  they  were  translating  the  New  Testament  from 
Greek  into  English,  the  common  reader  would  never  have 
seen  the  words  baptize,  baptism,  and  the  like,  in  the  Eng- 
lish language.  If  the  learned  Pedo-Baptist  scholar,  Prof. 
Stuart,  is  to  be  believed,  immersion  is  precisely  and  liter- 
ally the  proper  translation  in  all  these  instances.  Had 
this  been  done  there  never  would  have  been  any  controver- 
sy on  this  subject  and  the  Baptists  Avould  not  be  charged 
of  "imposing  upon  Christians  a  practice  dangerous  to 
health  and  offensive  to  delicacy,  and  really  without  Scrip- 
'tnral  authority." 

Having  just  called  attention  to  this  word  in  the  Greek 
Testament  which  King  James  forbade  to  be  translated,  but 
simply  retained,  and  by  a  little  change  in  the  orthography 
in  baptizo  the  final  letter  o  is  changed  to  e,  so  v&h&ve bap- 
tize and  the  noun  baptisnia ;  the  last  letter  is  dropped  al- 
together, so  we  have  baptism.  By  this  ingenious  arrange- 
ment, great  latitude  is  offered  the  various  sects  of  religion- 
ists to  construe  the  meaning  which  these  words  never  had, 
to  suit  their  own  peculiar  notions.  Bapto,  the  word 
which  Dr.  Hudson's  author,  Dr.  Dale,  defines  in  forty-seven 
cases,  already  alluded  to,  is  employed  in  the  Greek  New 
Testament  only  three  times,  and  its  cognate,  embapto, 
three  times  and  in  our  common  version  is  always  trans- 
lated f 1  dip. "  But  these  words  are  never  used  in  connection 
with  baptism  as  a  religious  ordinance.  Baptizo,  as  I  above 
stated,  is  invariably  used.  Now  to  make  this  matter  plain 
about  King  James'  translators  declining  to  give  us  the 
plain  English  meaning  of  this  word,  and  which  all  the  lexi- 
cographers in  the  world  of  any  note,  say  is  dipping  or  im- 
mersion, if  they  had  applied  the  same  rule  to  the  word 
which  is  translated  spiinkle,  we  would  have  rantize  and 
rantism  Avherever  the  word  sprinkle  occurs,  just  as  we 


87 


have  baptize  and  baptism,  in  the  place  of  immerse  and  im- 
mersion, had  these  words  been  translated  into  English. 
Every  man  of  intelligence  knows  that  from  the  days  of  the 
Apostles,  till  the  reign  of  King  James,  immerse  was  the 
commonly  received  meaning.  All  history  testifies  that  it 
was  ordinarily  practiced  for  thirteen  hundred  years. 

Dr.  Wall,  Dr.  Whitby,  Prof.  Stuart,  Bishop  Smith,  Dr. 
Campbell,  Stackhouse,  Knapp,  McKnight,  and  we  know  not 
how  many  other  Pedo-Baptists  of  distinction,  make  this 
concession. 

We  have  made  it  a  point  to  examine  many  Greek  lexi- 
cons recently  in  regard  to  the  signification  of  baptizo. 
These  authors,  with  very  remarkable  unanimity,  give  the 
primary  and  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word  "  immerse,  "or 
its  equivalent.  Its  definite  import  is  as  clear  and  pointed 
as  any  other  in  the  Greek  language.  It  is  as  specific  as 
rantizo,  which  might,  with  as  much  propriety,  be  rendered 
immerse,  as  to  render  baptizo  to  sprinkle.  But  we  have  seen 
no  lexicon  that  rendered  the  word  baptizo,  to  sprinkle.  It 
has  never  been  translated  in  the  New  Testament,  but  mere- 
ly adopted  into  our  language.  The  termination  of  it  was 
simply  changed,  and  baptizo  became  baptize.  To  ascer- 
tain the  true  meaning  of  it,  like  any  other  word,  we  must 
refer  to  the  various  Greek  lexicons.  And  here  it  is  proper 
to  say  of  the  Greek  lexicons  to  which  we  refer,  that  they 
were  made  by  men  who  had  no  partiality  for  Baptists. 
We  first  refer  to  Liddell  and  Scott  's  Greek  and  English  lexi- 
con. This  is  the  standard  work  and  used  in  nearly  all  the 
high  schools  and  colleges  of  the  world,  and  with  which  we 
are  sure  Dr.  Hudson  is  familiar.  "It  has  been  said  that  there 
is  scarcely  a  sentence  of  importance  in  the  whole  range  of 
Greek  literature  that  it  has  not  weighed."  These  learned 
authors  (Episcopalians)  as  honest  scholars,  give  the  fol- 
lowing as  the  only  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo:  1.  "To 
dip  repeatedly :  of  ships,  to  sink  them.  Middle  voice,  to 
bathe.  2.  To  draw  water.  t\.  To  baptize/ —New  Tes- 
tament. 


88 


This  great  work  em  anated  originally  from  Oxford ,  Eng- 
land, which  does  not  show  that  this  controverted  word 
meant  either  to  pour  or  sprinkle.  And  yet  we  turn  to  a 
copy  of  the  same  lexicon  before  us,  published  in  unabridg- 
ed form  by  Prof.  Henry  Drisler,  of  the  United  States,  in  the 
year  1852,  in  which  tie  gives  "  to  pour  upon"  as  the  sev- 
enth definition  of  this  word  baptizo.  This  he  has  done 
without  authority,  so  anxious  is  he  to  sustain  the  cause  of 
Pedo-Baptists.  He  has  thus  laid  himself  liable  to  the 
charge  of  literary  forgery ;  for  he  represents  Liddell  and 
Scott  as  saying  what  they  have  not  said.  "  He  deserves," 
says  Dr.  Pendleton,  "the  contempt  of  the  literary  world, 
and  the  indignant  hissings  of  all  the  truth-loving  portion 
of  mankind."  It  is  said  that  when  Mr.  Drisler 's  first  edi- 
tion appeared  he  was  so  severely  criticised  by  the  newspa- 
pers for  taking  this  unpardonable  liberty  with  these  popu- 
lar and  truthful  authors,  that  he  promised  to  expunge  his 
definition  "to  pour  upon"  in  his  next  edition.  This  it 
seems  he  never  did.  So  Ave  still  have  in  our  American  edi- 
tions this  unwarrantable  meaning  of  the  word. 

But  here  is  what  Dr.  Charles  Anthon  says — he  is  the  au- 
thor of  so  many  Greek  and  Latin  books  familiar  to  the  eye 
of  the  school  boy,  and  he  is  also  an  Episcopalian  and  Pro- 
fessor of  Greek  in  Columbia  College,  New  York— this  is 
what  he  says  in  his  letter  to  Dr.  Palmley :  "  The  primary 
meaning  of  baptizo  is  to  dip  or  immerse,  and  its  secondary 
meanings,  if  it  ever  had  any,  all  refer,  in  some  way  or  oth- 
er, to  the  same  leading  idea,  immersion.   Sprinkling  on 

POURING  ARE  ENTIRELY  OUT  OF  THE  QUESTION."    Yet  Dr. 

Hudson  asserts  that  this  word  "  does  not  uniformly  mean 
to  immerse.1''  "And  therefore  (he  says)  the  immersional 
theory  completely  breaks  down." — See  Methodist  Armor, 
page  92.  Liddell  and  Scott  and  Anthon,  the  most  learned 
and  popular  classical  scholars  of  the  age,  who  have  had 
the  highest  positions  in  the  most  noted  institutions  of  the 
world,  declare  that  to  dip  or  immerse  is  not  only  the  usual 


89 


meaning,  but  the  only  definition  that  can  be  properly  giv-# 
en  to  baptizo.  But  Dr.  Hudson,  a  Presiding  Elder  in  the 
Methodist  Conference  of  North  Carolina,  will  hardly  be  able 
to  compete  in  scholarship  with  these  celebrated  Pedo-Bap- 
tist  lexicograpers,  and  according  to  their  view  "the  im- 
mersional  theory"  does  not  "completely  break  down." 

We  have  other  Greek  lexicons  before  us.  Here  is  Groves' , 
comprising  all  the  words  in  the  writings  of  the  most  pop- 
ular Greek  authors  and  the  Septuagint,  and  the  New  Tes- 
tament. Baptizo,  he  defines  "to  dip,"  "to  immerse,"  "to 
plunge, "  "to  immerge, "  &c.  No  intimation  of  sprinkling  or 
pouring.    Donnegan,  also,  says  the  same. 

We  have  Dr.  N.  L.  Rice's  debate  with  Alexander  Camp- 
bell. Dr.  R  gives  us  the  result  of  his  researches  among 
Greek  dictionaries.  He  quotes  from  twelve.  Every  one 
says  that  baptizo  means  dip,  or  immerse,  nor  do  any  of 
the  twelve  assign  to  this  word  any  meaning  that  does  not 
admit  of  immersion.  And  Dr.  Rice  is  a  Presbyterian.  He 
mentions  the  names  of  his  twelve  authors :  Scapula,  Hederi- 
cas,  Stephanies,  Schleusner,  Parkhurst,  Robinson,  Groves, 
Greenfield  and  so  on.  We  could  here  extend  the  list  of 
these  Greek  dictionaries  to  at  least  forty  more,  all  of  which 
unite  in  giving  baptizo  the  meaning  to  dip,  to  immerse,  to 
plunge,  whilst  none  of  them  say  it  means  to  pour  or  sprin- 
kle. We  will  mention  some  of  them :  Jones,  Rost,  Pasor, 
Pickring,  Passow,  Leigh,  Richardson,  Castell,  Guido,  Wil- 
son, Robertson,  Paschal,  Butterworth,  Ashe  and  many 
others,  made  in  different  ages,  in  different  countries,  by  the 
learned  of  different  denominations,  and  still  agreeing  in  giv- 
ing baptizo  ( the  word  always  used  in  the  Newr  Testament 
to  express  the  idea  of  baptism)  the  meaning  of  to  immerse, 
or  to  plunge,  and  none  of  them  indicating  remotely  that 
it  ever  means  to  pour  or  sprinkle.  Does  this  look  like  "the 
immersional  theory  completely  breaks  down  ?  "  Again,  we 
repeat  that  there  is  among  all  these  Greek  dictionaries  <i 
most  perfect  unanimity  in  assigning  immerse,  or  its  equiv- 


90 

* 

alent,  as  the  ordinary  meaning  of  baptizo.  This,  alone, 
instead  of  "  breaking  down,"  ought  forever  to  settle  the 
baptismal  controversy. 

Blackstone,  the  idol  of  the  legal  profession,  is  before  us. 
Here  is  the  rule  he  lays  down :  "  Words  are  generally  to  be 
understood  in  their  usual  and  most  known  signification ; 
not  so  much  regarding  the  propriety  of  grammer  as  their 
general  an d  popular  use. ' ' 

Now  doesn't  everybody  see  that  the  "  most  known  sig- 
nification," and  the  "  general  and  popular  use"  of  baptize 
was  to  immerse.  Wherever  the  ordinance  of  baptism  is 
spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament,  this  word  baptizo  inva- 
riably occurs,  as  we  have  heretofore  shown,  and  that  it 
cannot  in  any  sense  be  rendered  either  to  pour  or  sprinkle, 
but  always  and  in  every  case  carries  with  it  the  idea  of  im- 
mersion. It  has  also  been  shown  from  the  most  noted 
Pedo-Baptist  writers  of  the  world,  that  immersion  was  the 
only  mode  practiced  for  about  three  hundred  years  after 
Christ  and  generally,  for  thirteen  hundred  years,  and  yet 
with  all  this  array  of  testimony  staring  him  in  the  face. 
Dr.  Hudson  boldly  declares  that  it  is  "  dangerous  to  health, 
offensive  to  delicacy  and  without  Scriptural  authority!" 
And  his  brother,  the  editor  of  the  Richmond  Christian  Ad- 
vocate, says  "it  ought  never  to  be  practiced  on  females,  or 
if  it  should,  it  ought  to  be  by  moonlight  by  a  blindfolded 
minister  and  only  in  the  presence  of  females!"  And  yet 
they  say  as' a  mode,  it  is  equally  as  valid  as  pouring  and 
sprinkling  in  the  Methodist  Church !  There  must  be  some- 
thing the  matter  with  men  who  talk  and  write  books  so 
utterly  contrary  to  truth. 

But  to  return.  We  will  here  give  a  few  more  quota- 
tions from  Dr.  Hudson,  to  show  the  reader  how  he  gets  at 
the  meaning  of  baptizo.  It  is  a  curiosity,  it  is  laughable, 
it  is  ridiculous.  Here  they  are,  page  92,  "Methodist  Ar- 
mor:" 1.  "Of  a  frog  pierced  and  slain,"  Homer  says. 
u  He  fell  without  even  looking  upward,  and  the  lake  ( ebap- 


( 

91 

teto)  was  tinged  with  blood/'  He  then  adds:  "Anybody 
knows  that  the  lake  could  not  possibly  be  immersed  in  the 
blood  of  a  frog,  but  that  the  blood  of  the  frog  tinged  the 
water  with  a  red  color."  "One  who  argues  in  this  manner 
never  fails,  with  persons  of  knowledge,  to  betray  the  cause 
he  would  defend.  A  candid  mind  will  disdain  to  take  the 
help  of  falsehood,  even  in  support  of  the  truth." 

Now  we  will  give  this  "  frog"  a  passing  notice,  more 
for  Dr.  Hudson's  information  than  to  honor  so  frivolous 
an  allusion  with  an  argument  .  We  have  the  wrorks  of  Ho- 
mer before  us.  Here  is  a  little  poem  called  "The  Rattle  of 
the  Frogs  and  Mice,"  and  is  attributed  to  Homer,  though 
it  is  thought  by  critics  to  be  a  spurious  production.  How- 
ever, here  it  is:  " Ebapteto  (Yaimati  Fmen  horphureo." 
Our  friend's  translation  of  the  passage  is :  "  Thefrogfell," 
(after  being  pierced  and  slain  by  the  mice)  "without  even 
looking  upward ,  and  the  lake  was  tinged  with  blood . ' '  Dr. 
H.  . thinks  he  has  found  here,  if  nowhere  else,  one  instance 
where  baptizo  cannot  mean  immerse.  After  searching 
through  the  whole  range  of  classical  literature,  after  he 
finds  all  the  lexicons  against  him,  and  the  writers  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament,  he  has  at  last  succeeded  in  finding 
in  this  "Battle  of  the  Frogs  and  Mice  "—attributed  to  Ho- 
mer, who  lived,  if  he  lived  at  all,  hundreds  of  years  before 
Christ— a  case  where  baptizo  does  not  mean  to  immerse ; 
neither  does  he  claim  it  to  mean  to  pour  or  sprinkle.  But 
my  friend  knows  that  this  word  as  well  as  others  may  be 
used  in  a  metaphorical  or  figurative  sense,  without  inval- 
idating or  changing  its  primary  signification.  The  lake 
was  said  to  be  "tinged"  with  blood,  that  is  to  say  that 
part  of  the  water  in  the  lake,  Avas  so  colored  with  blood 
that  it  had  the  appearance  of  being  wholly  imbued  or  im- 
mersed in  blood.  This  is  clearly  the  intentional  use  of  the 
word  here;  it  is  to  be  understood  allusively  and  not  realty; 
relatively  rather  than  absolutely.  If  a  body  had  been  bap- 
tized or  immersed  it  could  not  ha  ve  been  more  wet  than 


92 


Nebuchadnezzar's  was,  so  if  the  lake  had  been  dipped  in 
blood  it  could  not  have  put  on  a  more  bloody  appearance, 
caused  by  the  blood  of  the  slain  frogs  after  the  battle. 
Such  expressions  are  allowed  poets  to  give  a  high  coloring 
to  their  ideas.  It  was  very  common  in  the  late  war  to  hear 
such  hyperbolical  expressions  as,  the  fields  of  battle  ran 
with  blood,  and  the  whole  country  covered  with  the  slain. 

We  speak  of  a  person's  being'  immersed  in  debt,  plung- 
ed in  afflictions:  such  expressions  are  called  figures  of 
speech.  The  word  dip  is  often  used  in  the  same  manner. 
We  speak  of  the  "  dip  of  the  magnetic  needle ;"  and  in  some 
places  there  is  a  practice  which  ladies  call  "dipping  snuff." 
Milton  says:  "A  cold,  shuddering  dew  dips  me  all  over." 
An  object  might  be  wet  or  moistened  by  being  dipped,  so 
also  the  same  can  be  done  by  being  sprinkled,  and  yet  who 
would  be  so  simple  as  to  suppose  or  conclude  therefore  that 
dip  and  sprinkle  were  synonymous,  meant  the  same  thing. 
And  Dr.  Hudson  himself  says,  speaking  of  receiving  mem- 
bers in  the  church:  "Methodism  sweeps  them  in  by  hun- 
dreds and  thousands;  it  sweeps  in  thousands  at  a  haul." 
Here  the  words  sweep  and  haul,  used  to  represent  the  recep- 
tion of  members  in  the  Methodist  Church,  must  be  highly 
figurative,  otherwise  they  would  be  absurd  and  nonsensical, 
as  the  wTord  "sweep"  ordinarily  implies  a  broom,  and 
"  haul "  the  idea  of  pulling  or  dragging.  So,  we  see,  it  will 
not  do  to  deny  the  ordinary  meaning  of  words,  because 
speakers  and  writers  sometimes  use  them  in  a  metaphori- 
cal sense.  We  must  stick  to  the  rule  laid  down  by  Black- 
stone,  viz :  "Words  are  generally  to  be  understood  in  their 
usual  and  most  known  signification."  (Yol.  I,  page  59, 
Chitty's  Blackstone.) 

Again:  2nd.  Dr:  Hudson  proceeds  thus :  "Hippocrates, 
a  Greek  scholar,  says  of  dyeing  substances :  1  When  it  drops 
upon  garments  they  are  (bapteti)  dyed  or  stained/ 
c  Here  we  see,'  says  he,  'immersion  is  out  of  the  question.'  " 

3rd.  "Aristophanes,  speaking  of  an  old  comic  writer, 


93 


says:  'Smearing  himself  (baptomenos)  with  frog-colored 
paint."   Here  the  term  cannot  mean  dip  or  plunge." 

4.  "Aristotle  speaking  of  a  coloring  substance:  "Be- 
ing pressed,  it  moistens  ( baptei )  and  dyes  the  hands.'  No 
immersion  here. ' ' 

5.  "  Plutarch  says :  'Thou  may  est  be  bathed  ( baptizee ) 
but  it  is  not  permitted  thee  to  go  under  the  water.' " 

6.  "  Clemens  Alexandrinus  says  of  a  penitent :  '  He  was 
baptized  a  second  time  with  tears.'  He  adds:  'Could  a 
man  be  immersed  literally  in  his  own  tears  ?  An  utter  im- 
possibility.' "  So  we  would  ask— can  Methodist  preachers 
"sweep  thousands  of  people  at  a  haul,"  literally  into  the 
Methodist  Church?  It  would  be  as  "utterly  impossible" 
to  take  a  broom  and  "sweep  thousands"  of  people  at  a 
"haul"  into  the  Methodist  Church,  as  for  a  man  to  drown 
himself  in  his  own  tears,  "literally." 

Dr.  H.  then  goes  on  to  say:  "We  see  now  without  quot- 
ing more  instances,  that  bapto  and  baptizo  do  not  always 
and  uniformly  mean  to  dip,  plunge,  or  immerse  and  there- 
fore the  immersional  theory  completely  breaks  down." 

';  Though  old  divines  could  tame  the  Greek 

And  learned  what  it  designed  to  speak, 

Yet  Hudson  finds  it  srangely  wild, 

Chasing  it  hard  through  flood  and  field,  » 

And  strives  with  all  his  might  and  main 

To  overtake  it,  but  all  m  vain. 

0  Luther,  Calvin,  Poole  and  Wall, 

And  lexicographers  one  and  all, 

What  pity,  ere  you  drew  the  quill. 

These  doctors  of  superior  skill 

Were  not  at  hand  to  show  you  how 

Baptizo  may  be  rendered  now!" 

Now  if  the  reader  will  turn  to  chapter  IV,  page  91,  of 
the  "Methodist  Armor,"  he  will  see  that  we  have  quoted 
Dr.  H.  in  full  on  his  efforts  to  prove  that  bapto  and  bap- 
tidzo,  in  the  original  language,  cannot  be  relied  on  to  sup- 
port the  "  immersional  theory/'  He  gives  us  first,  one  Dr. 
Dales'  forty-sewn  definitions  of  bapto,  to  which  Ave  have 


94- 


heretofore  paid  attention,  and,  as  we  think,  have  shown  no 
damage  done  to  the  "theory"  there.  He  next  tells  ns  about 
Homer's  wounded  "Frog,"  about  some  one's  smearing 
himself  with  "Frog-colored  paint,"  how  garments  are 
dyed,  and,  lastly,  of  a  "penitent  baptized  in  tears"  and 
then  comes  to  the  inevitable  conclusion,  saying,  "Therefore 
the  immersion  a  I  theory  completely  breaks  down."  Poor 
frog !  "He  fell  without  even  looking  upward,  and  the  lake 
was  tinged  with  blood!"  In  like  manner,  as  the  frog 
"pierced  and  slain"  went  down  into  the  lake,  Dr.  Hudson 
sees  the  immersional  theory  of  the  Baptists  completely 
broken  down!  But  enough  of  this  puerile  sport.  The 
reader  will  pardon  the  writer  for  his  frivolous  manner  in  his 
criticisms  of  the  language  and  ideas  of  a  doctor  of  divinity, 
and  for  allowing  himself  to  thus  be  led  off  the  grave  and 
solemn  issue  between  us. 

Let  us  return  to  the  "Armor."  The  author  calls  our 
attention  to  "the  distinction  between  sacred  and  secular 
meaning  of  words."  "That  words  change  their  meaning 
in  the  course  of  time."  That  "in  the  Greek  language  the 
word  Presbyter,  meant  simply  an  old  man;  but  in  the  Bible 
the  same  word  means  a  preacher,  old  or  young.  In  the  old 
Greek  language  a  pastor  meant a  keeper  of  sheep;  in  the 
Bible  it  signifies  a  man  in  charge  of  a  church,"  &e.  "It 
follows  conclusively,"  says  he,  "that  if  baptizodidmeanin 
the  Greek  classics,  to  dip,  or  immerse,  it  proves  nothing 
unless  it  can  be  shown  that  it  means  the  same  thing  in  the 
New  Testament."  He  says :  "The  conclusion  of  the  whole 
matter  to  which  we  come  is:  1.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
history  of  John's  baptism,  nothing  in  the  practice  of  the 
Apostles,  nothing  in  the  miscellaneous  allusions  to  baptism 
in  the  Epistles,  nothing  in  the  meaning  of  the  word  bap- 
tize, to  authorize  the  belief  that  any  particular  mode  of 
baptism  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  this  rite."  ( Armor, 
pages  92-93.) 

We  pause  here  to  notice  these  points.    First,  as  to  the 


95 


words  "changing  their  meaning,''  We  don 'i  intend  to  let 
him  off  here  so  easy  as  he  imagines.  For  on  such  princi- 
ples, and  by  such  reasonings,  the  natural  and  primary 
meaning  of  any  word,  in  any  law,  or  in  any  lang  uage  might 
be  quickly  explained  away.  "Were  this  principle  of  inter- 
pretation universally  admitted  no  law  upon  earth  could 
maintain  its  authority.  The  obligation  of  laws  and  obedi- 
ence to  la  w-givers,  would  be  at  an  end.  Nor  could  any  fact 
or  doctrine  contained  in  the  Bible  stand  its  ground  against 
tie  operation  of  this  principle.  By  rejecting  the,  natural 
sense  and  primary  meaning  of  inspired  terms  when  we  find 
them  contrary  to  our  inclination,  and  by  adopting  a  sec- 
ondary or  allusive  inference  as  often  as  we  find  an  occasion, 
it  is  an  easy  matter  for  the  most  ungodly  person  to  form  a 
creed  of  his  own,  let  the  real  meaning  of  prophets  and 
Apostles  be  what  they  may.  Grant  but  the  liberty  of  tak- 
ing the  principal  words  of  a  law,  a  narrative,  or  of  a  doc- 
trine, in  a  secondary  and  remote  sense  and  a  person  of 
genius  might  safely  evade  any  law,  subvert  any  doctrine 
and  misrepresent  any  fact  contained  in  the  Bible.  While 
the  writer's  knowledge  of  language,  ancient  or  modern,  is 
very  limited,  still  he  ventures  the  assertion  that  there  are 
few  terms  in  any  language  but  what  are  as  liable  to  im- 
proper and  secondary  acceptation  as  the  word  baptism. 
Why  then,  in  the  name  of  common  .sense,  should  this 
emphatieal  term  b&piizo,  be  singled  out  as  most  equivocal 
of  all  others  in  its  meaning?  Why  so  much  to  do  to  evade 
its  natural  force,  and  yet  admit  it  to  be  "equally  valid?  " 
One  thing  is  certain,  the  solemn  use  of  water  is  not  denied 
by  our  Pedo-Ba  ptist  brethren,  a  nd  if  it  be  omitted  ba  ptism 
itself  is  wanting.  If  it  be  used  contrary  to  divine  order 
and  primitive  practice  the  ordinance  is  corrupted,  and  so 
corrupted  as  not  to  deserve  the  original  name.  Why 
should  this  word  baptizo  of  all  others  express  three  differ- 
ent actions,  immerse,  sprinkle,  pour?  A  word  that  has 
three  senses  equally  proper  and  natural  to  it  is  indeed  a 


96 


most  accommodating  one.  It  has  no  determinate  sense  at 
all.  It  is  a>mere  term  without  an  idea  and  deserves  to  be 
banished  from  the  language  to  which  it  belongs. 

But  Dr.  Hudson  says  immersion  is  valid  baptism, 
equally  valid  with  sprinkling  and  pouring,  and  then,  alas! 
he  represents  the  folly  of  this  admission  and  sets  about  to 
get  it  out  of  his  way  by  spending  all  his  ingenuity  to  prove 
that  it  is  not  of  divine  authority,  and  that  it  is  both  "  dan- 
gerous and  indecent."  Equally  valid !  Strange  word  !  Its 
meaning  occasions  no  dispute  in  ancient  or  modern  writ- 
ings where  the  sacred  institution  is  not  referred  to.  In  all 
others  it  is  clear,  it  is  plain.  No  three  or  four  dilferent 
senses  are  required  for  it  to  perform.  It  is  used  to  express 
how  people  in  all  ages  and  in  all  countries,  however  cold, 
plunge  their  bodies  for  health  and  amusement.  Even  in 
our  own  country  it  allows  persons  of  both  sexes  for  medi- 
cal purposes  and  pleasure  to  practice  it  without  censure. 
But  just  as  soon  as  the  term  is  considered  as  a  part  of 
Christian  worship,  all  is  darkness  and  confusion ;  danger- 
ous and  indecent,  if  immersion  is  mentioned.  All  the  lexi- 
cons, all  the  dictionaries,  all  history,  become  at  once  the 
objects  of  inquiry  in  order  to  trump  up  some  other  mean- 
ing to  this  troublesome  word,  but  all  in  vain.  It  is  there, 
and  there  it  will  remain  as  long  as  Christ  has  a  people  on 
earth  to  follow  his  example  in  the  baptismal  waters.  It 
will  stand  as  it  has  done  the  storms  of  persecution,  ridicule 
and  contempt,  whatever  becomes  of  pouring  and  sprinkling. 
The  word  is  as  uncompromising  in  its  significance,  as  any 
other  in  the  language,  when  used  in  secular  ma  tters,  and  it 
is  never  called  upon  to  yield  its  usual  vocation,  until  the 
holy  ordinance  is  wanted .  Then  our  opponents  would  have 
it  become  a  "Proteus  or  a  chameleon,"  for  it  must  as- 
sume different  appearances  to  suit  the  demand;  change  its 
shape  or  color  as  may  be  required.  If  you  desire  sprink- 
ling, it  is  your  devoted  servant;  and  you  may  sprinkle 
head  or  face,  the  hands  or  feet,  for  it  makes  no  objection  so 


97 


water  be  "  applied  "  to  the  subject  .  Have  you  a  preference 
for  pouring?  Still  it  is  at  your  service:  for  whether  you 
pour  much  or  little  on  the  face  or  neck,  on  the  fingers  or 
toes,  it  will  sanction  your  deed.  Are  you  for  washing? 
Why  that  is  all  right— you  may  dip  a  towel  in  the  basin,  in- 
stead of  your  fingers,  and  apply  it  to  the  face  or  to  the 
hands,  or  to  any  part  of  the  body  you  please,  for  it  will  be 
quite  satisfied  so  you  but  apply  the  water  in  some  form  or 
other,  and  you  are  at  your  option.  If  you  happen  to  be 
"fond"  of  water,  and  to  prefer  immersion,  this  goo^-natur- 
ed  word  can't  refuse ;  for  it  is  equally  valid,  altho'  it  as- 
sumes in  this  last,  a  form  both  "dangerous  and  indecent." 
(  See  Methodist  Armor,  pages  81-93.)  So  our  Methodist 
friends  are  satisfied  so  water  is  applied,  little  or  much,  to 
any  part  of  the  body,  to  unconscious  babes,  penitent  sin- 
ners and  believing  saints. 

"  If  water  only  be  applied, 
That  will  suffice,  can't  be  deny'd. 
Each  one  may  choose  his  manner  now ; 
If  each  is  pleased,  no  matter  how. 
No  matter  how ?    Then  why  is't  there? 
And  why  the  crown  or  face  prefer? 
*     Why  should  the  region  of  the  nose 
Be  deemed  more  fit  than  of  the  toes  ? 
Why  should  you  not  baptize  the  hands, 
To  execute  divine  commands  ? 
The  feet,  to  run  the  Christian  road  ? 
The  shoulders,  to  sustain  the  load? 
The  neck,  the  Christian  yoke  to  bear, 
And  serve  the  Lord  with  holy  fear? 
Why  not  the  sacred  rite  impart 
About  the  region  of  the  heart  ? 
What,  in  the  nature  of  the  case, 
Should  make  you,  Doctor,  choose  the  face? 


98 


CHAPTER  IV. 

We  affirm,  that  the  classical  usage  of  baptizo  estab- 
lishes the  position  of  Baptists. 

If  w§  have  not  satisfied  the  reader  that  Dr.  Hudson's 
theory  on  this  point  has  been  met,  let  us  look  at  it  again. 
He  quotes  from  some  of  the  old  Greek  writers,  Hippocrates, 
Aristotle  and  others.  The  first  lived  about  430  years  be- 
fore Christ  and  Aristotle  died  332  years  before  the  Chris- 
tian era.  Plutarch  died  about  140  years  after  Christ.  By 
referring  to  Prof.  Stuart,  ( that  learned  author  so  often  al- 
luded to)  on  the  "  mode  of  baptism,"  (pages  14-20)  the 
reader  will  see  that  he  has  gone  through  the  whole  range 
of  classical  and  sacred  literature,  reciting  numerous  exam- 
ples including  those  mentioned  by  Dr.  H.,  and  although 
seven  hundred  years  intervened  between  the  birth  of  Pindar 
and  the  death  of  Plutarch,  .yet  he  shows  usbylnnumerable 
quotations  from  these  ancient  authors,  that  baptizo  was 
used  by  them  to  express  immersion  or  its  equivalent,  and 
never,  in  one  single  instance,  the  idea  of  either  sprinkling- 
or  pouring.  Most  of  these  Greek  writers  lived  before  bap- 
tism was  instituted,  and  knew  nothing  of  immersion  as  a 
religious  ordinance.  There  was  no  controversy  as  to  the 
meaning  of  baptizo,  during  the  classic  period  of  Grecian 
history,  and  the  most  obvious  meaning  then  given  to  it 
was  that  of  immersion.  No  man  who  has  any  reputation 
to  lose,  as  a  Greek  scholar,  will  deny  that,  up  to  the  time 
of  the  introduction  of  the  New  Testament,  this  word  meant 
to  immerse,  and  that  usage  had  fully  established  this 
meaning.  And  Prof.  Stuart  concludes,  after  going  over  the 
whole  ground  and  considering allits meanings,  "that there 


99 


is  no  proof  in  it  all  that  the  word  is  ever  used  in  any  other 
than  one  of  the  two  following  senses :  " 

1st.  "To  dip,  plunge,  immerse  anything  in  liquid." 

2nd.  "To  overwhelm,  literally  or  figuratively.'*  (See 
Biblical  Repos.,  April  1833,  page  288-179.) 

The  only  possible  exception  to  the  above,  made  by 
Prof.  Stuart,  is  the  case  of  Dionysius,  commenting  upon 
Homer,  II,  XII,  333,  where  it  is  said  ofAjax,  that  he  struck 
Cleobulous  across  the  neck  with  his  heavy  sword,  li  and  the 
whole  sword  became  warmed  with  blood."  Baptisthentos 
is  the  word  used  in  Greek,  and  Prof.  S.  allows  that  "the 
sword  was  so  dipped  or  immersed  in  blood  as  to  become 
heated. "  The  above  is  the  language  of  Moses  Stuart,  pro- 
fessor of  Andover  University,  and  not  a  Baptist ;  and  if 
Dr.  Rosser,  of  the  Methodist  Church  is  to  be  believed,  Dr. 
Hudson's  theory  of  the  "secular  and  sacred  meaning  of 
this  word/'  is  at  an  end  forever ;  for  says  Dr.  Rosser :  "The 
judgment  of  Prof.  Stuart,  as  a  Biblical  critic,  is  of  the  high- 
est reputation  in  the  United  States.''  * 

When  the  Savior  made  his  appearance  among  men,  he 
found  this  word  in  common  use;  so  did  the  Apostles,  and 
consequently  used  it,  as  they  found  it  like  all  other  words 
in  the  language.  Surely,  neither  the  Savior  nor  his  Dis- 
ciples, would  attempt  to  change  the  meaning  of  words  from 
their  ordinary  use  when  they  wished  to  impress  the  minds 
of  their  hearers  with  truths  so  important.  In  his  positive 
command,  to  teach  and  to  baptize,  there  was  no  uncer- 
tainty what  was  meant.  Our  Methodist  friends  have  just 
as  much  reason  to  attach  some  other  meaning  to  the  word 
"teach"  as  they  have  to  construe  the  word  baptize  to 
mean  anything  but  to  dip  or  immerse.  They  have  just  as 
much  cause  to  say  that  "  teach,"  in  the  28th  chapter  of 
Matthew,  19th  verse,  means  to  punish,  as  to  say  that  the 
word  baptizing  in  the  same  verse  means  sprinkling-  or 
pouring.  "Why?  Been  use  the  word  "teach"  (matheten- 
sati)  in  the  Greek  Testnment,  menus  literally,  to  disciple; 


100 


and  if  you  will  consult  your  English  dictionary,  you  will 
find  the  secondary  meaning  of  the  verb,  to  disciple,  means 
to  punish.  Now  let  us  be  fair ;  if  we  change  the  meaning  of 
one,  let  the  other  be  treated  likewise.  Then  the  verse  will 
read :  "Go  ye  therefore,  and  punish  all  nations,  sprinkling 
or  pouring  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

This  example  illustrates  the  folly  of  avoiding  the  ordi- 
nary meaning  of  words  to  carry  a  point,  and  it  seems  to 
me  sufficient  to  carry  conviction  to  the  most  biased  mind 
as  to  the  Scriptural  mode  of  baptism. 

"For,"  says  a  fine  writer,  "the  whole  certainty  of  lan- 
guage rests  upon  this  principle  of  construing  words  by  their 
natural  and  usual  meaning.  All  our  assurance  from  Scrip- 
ture, even  of  eternal  happiness  for  the  righteous,  rests  upon 
it,  as  well  as  the  eternal  punishment  of  the  wicked.  When, 
for  instance,  in  arguing  with  a  Universalist,  we  set  before 
him  the  terms  'eternal'  and  'everlasting,'  he  will  of  course 
plead  that  these  terms  do  not  fully  and  fairly  mean  with- 
out any  end,  and  would  cite  us  to  the  15th  verse  of  the  45th 
chapter  of  Ecclesiastes,  in  which  place  the  word  1  everlast- 
ing '  in  one  sense  is  at  an  end.  And  have  we  to  go  through 
the  whole  range  of  Greek  literature,  and  give  up  the  eterni- 
ty of  the  blessedness  of  heaven,  if  there  shall  be  one  or  two 
cases  found,  in  which,  figuratively  or  literally,  the  word 
may  possibly  have  reference  to  a  less  duration?  Surely  it 
is  sufficient  if  we  establish  a  prevailing  usage.  We  are  then 
entitled  to  claim  that  as  the  sense  of  the  promise  or  the 
threatening  of  Scripture,  unless  a  different  meaning  can  be 
proved  in  this  case.  The  burden  of  showing  an  exception 
is  thrown  on  the  side  of  the  objector." 

We  think  this  position  is  so  impregnable  and  so  plainly 
taught  in  the  Scriptures,  that  Dr.  H.  has  but  one  alterna- 
tive left  him  here,  and  that  is  to  fall  back  on  his  Church  Dis- 
cipline and  gi  ve  up  the  New  Testament  argument.  On  page 
43  of  the  "  Armor,"  he  quotes  from  the  XXII  Article  of  the 


101 


Discipline,  which  reads  thus:  ''Every  particular  Church 
may  ordain,  change  or  abolish  rites  and  ceremonies,' '  &c, 
and  Dr.  H.  then  explains:  "It  teaches  that  whenever  a 
ceremony  becomes  a  hindrance  to  the  real  progress  of  the 
Church,  it  is  to  be  laid  aside.  When  new  ones  are  needed, 
they  are  to  be  used.  The  law  of  expediency  is  to  reign  as 
to  these  matters."  Here,  and  here  alone,  Dr.  Hudson  can 
rest  his  case.  Here  is  sufficient  authority  for  human  insti- 
tutions, and  for  all  his  theories,  which  he  has  failed  to  find 
in  the  Scriptures.  But  the  blessed  Savior  speaks  to  all  who 
assume  the  authority  to  '*  ordain,. change  or  abolish  rites 
and  ceremonies''  belonging  to  His  Church,  or  fix  any  "law 
of  expediency ' '  ' '  to  reign ' '  therein,  thus :  ' '  But  in  vain  they 
do  worship  me.  teaching  for  doctrines  the  commandments 
of  men."  Matt.  XY-9.  "It  is  a  dangerous  thing  in  the 
service  of  God,  to  decline  from  His  own  institutions  ;  w7e 
have  to  do  with  a  God  avIio  is  wise  to  prescribe  His  own 
worship,  just  to  require  what  he  has  prescribed,  and  pow- 
erful to  revenge  what  He  has  not  prescribed." — Bishop 
Hail. 


102 


CHAPTER  V. 
Argument  taken  from  the  Old  Testament. 

Now,  if  the  reader  is  not  fully  satisfied,  we  ask  him  to  go 
with  us  a  little  further  while  we  turn  back  to  the  pages  of 
the  Old  Testament.  Here  the  word  baptize  or  baptism  is 
nowhere  found  expressed  in  the  English  language.  Why  is 
this  ?  It  is  not  because  the  original  word  baptizo  in  the 
Septuagint  is  not  there,  for  we  find  it  in  the  Greek  version 
of  the  Bible,  just  as  it  is  in  the  New  Testament.  But  in 
every  instance  it  has  been  translated  into  plain  English, 
and  not  transferred  and  retained  as  it  is  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

This  is  a  very  significant  fact.  In  the  Old  Testament 
wherever  the  word  is  used,  it  has  no  reference  to  ■  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism,  for  it  was  not  then  instituted.  There 
was  nothing  in  the  way,  and  the  seventy  learned  men,  ap- 
pointed by  King  James,  have  given  us  the  English  meaning 
of  baptizo,  just  as  they  did  all  other  words.  Hence  baptize 
or  baptism  does  not  occur  at  all  in  the  Bible,  but  its  plain 
meaning  in  English.  The  word,  however,  occurs  only  fif- 
teen times,  says  Dr.  Barnes.  The  Old  Testament  was  first 
written  in  Hebrew,  and  then  from  Hebrew  translated  into 
Greek,  by  the  Alexandrine  Sanhedrim,  over  two  hundred 
years  before  Christ,  which  is  called  the  Septuagint  version. 
It  was  this  version  the  Savior  and  his  Apostles  read,  it  be- 
ing at  that  time  found  and  used  in  all  the  Jewish 
Synagogues. 

Dr.  Barnes,  says:  "The  true  way  to  ascertain  the 
meaning  of  this  word  baptizo  among  the  Jews,  is  to  exam- 
ine carefully  the  fifteen  places  where  it  occurs  in  the  Old 


103 


Testament."  He  says:  "In  Hebrew,  the  word  is  tabal, 
and  always  rendered  in  Greek  baptize "  He  then  gives  ns 
the  fifteen  places  as  follows. 

I.  Leviticus  4-6:  "  And  the  priest  shall  dip  his  finger 
in  blood.1* 

II.  Leviticus  24-6 :  "  Shall  dip  them  in  the  blood  of  the 
bird  that  was  killed  over  running  water." 

III.  "  And  dip  them  in  the  blood  of  the  slain  bird  and 
in  the  running  water." 

IV.  Numbers  19-18:  "And  a  clean  person  shall  take 
hyssop  and  dip  it  into  the  running  water." 

V.  lluth  2-14 :  "  And  Boaz  said  unto  her  at  mealtime, 
Come  thou  hither  and  eat  of  the  bread  and  dip  thy  morsel 
in  the  vinegar." 

VI.  Exodus  12-22 :  "And  ye  shall  take  a  bunch  of  hys- 
sop and  dip  it  in  the  blood." 

VII.  Dent.  33-24 :  "  And  let  him  dip  his  foot  in  oil." 

VIII.  Ezek.  23-15:  "  Exceeding  in  dyed  attire." 

IX.  Job  9-31:  "Yet  shaft  thou  plunge  me  in  the 
ditch." 

X.  Levit.  9-9  :  "And  he  dipped  his  finger  in  the  blood." 

XI.  I  Sanrl  14-27:  "And  he  put  forth  the  end  of  his 
rod,  and  dipped  it  in  the  honey  comb." 

XII.  II  Kings  8-16:  "  And  he  took  a  thick  cloth  and 
dipped  it  in  the  water,"  &c. 

XIII.  Josh.  3-15:  "The feet  of  the  priests  that  bear  the 
ark  were  dipped  in  the  brim  of  the  water." 

XIV.  II  Kings  5-14:  "And  he  went  down  and  dipped 
himself  seven  times  in  Jordan." 

XV.  Gen.  37-31:  "And  they  took  Joseph's  coat  and 
killed  a  kid  and  dipped  the  coat  in  the  blood." 

Now  nobody  has  ever  questioned  the  translation  in 
II  Kings  where  it  is  said  Naaman  dipped  himself  in  Jordan, 
and  if  the  same  rule  had  been  observed  in  Matthew,  it 
would  have  read,  they  were  dipped  by  John  in  Jordan,  just 
as  it  is  in  Kings.    Indeed,  had  this  same  word  been  trans- 


104 


lated  from  Greek  into  English  in  the  New  Testament  as  it 
was  invariable  done  in  the  Old,  we  never  should  have  had 
all  this  controversy  about  the  "  mode"  of  Christ's  ordi- 
nance. In  every  instance  where  the  word  baptize  and  bap- 
tism now  occurs  in  the  English  language,  if  the  original 
word  had  been  translated  as  it  was  done  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment we  would  have  immerse  or  dip,  and  immersion  or  dip- 
ping throughout  the  New  Testament.  There  is  such  an 
abundance  of  proof  of  this  fact,  and  that  too,  from  Pedo- 
Baptist  writers  of  all  ages  and  of  the  most  celebrated  schol- 
ars of  the  world,  both  of  ancient  and  modern  times,  that  it 
no  little  surprises  us,  that  a  Christian  man  and  a  Doctor  of 
Divinity,  should  write  and  publish  a  book  in  which  he  states 
in  the  most  positive  manner,  that  it  is  a  practice  both 
"dangerous  to  health  and  offensive  to  delicacy  and  really 
without  Scriptural  authority." 

Nay,  more;  he  says  on  page  93,  Sec.  3:  "To  require 
immersion  in  order  to  admission  into  the  Church  is  contra- 
ry to  the  teaching  of  the  Bible  and  is  to  'teach  for  doctrine 
the  commandments  of  men.'  And  to  exclude  pious  Christ- 
ians from  the  Lord's  table  beca.use  they  have  not  been  im- 
mersed is  narrow-hearted  bigotry."  He  thus  "  eats  "his 
own  words;  for,  speakingof  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  we  have 
before  seen,  he  says:  "  Whatsover  is  not  read  therein,  nor 
may  be  proved  thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of  any  man 
that  it  should  be  believed  as  an  article  of  faith."  And  yet 
right  in  the  face  of  this  general  rule  of  the  Methodist  Dis- 
cipline and  which  he  endorses,  he,  calls  us  "narrow-hearted 
bigots,  "  because  we  strictly  adhere  to  and  carry  out  in  our 
practice  the  very  same  principle  ! 

He  farther  states  on  the  same  page  of  his  book,  Art  .  4 : 
"Baptism  is  enjoined  upon  all  nations,  and  pouring  is 
adapted  to  all  climates,  but  immersion  is  not.  How  could 
immersion  be  performed  in  those  countries  where  for  six 
months  in  the  year,  every  pond,  river  and  ocean  is  con- 
verted into  solid  ice?  "   Then,  I  would  say,  how  would  Dr. 


105 


Hud  son  get  along  in  such  a  country  if  he  were  there  ?  Would 
he  take  the  little  babes  in  his  arms  and  pour  " solid  ice'' 
over  their  tender  bodies  and  call  it  baptism  or  would  he 
pour  or  sprinkle  a  few  pieces  on  the  head  of  a  man  or  a 
woman,  and  think  that  sufficient?  Whatever  difficulties 
he  may  see  in  cold  climates,  the  Baptists  have  none,  for 
they  believe  what  the  Holy  Ghost  says :  "  Go  teach  all  na- 
tions, immersing'  them,''  &e.  Besides,  as  we  have  before 
shown,  the  Greeks  occupy  and  live  in  these  cold  climates, 
even  in  "  Snowy  Thrace ;"  still  immersion  only  is  practiced 
by  them  as  a  Christian  ordinance,  and,  just  as  we  Baptists 
utterly  ignore  any  other  mode.  And  notwithstanding  they 
reside  in  those  cold  climates  and  often  have  to  break  the 
ice  to  immerse  their  candidates  they  largely  outnumber  Dr. 
H.'s  boasted  thousands,  including  babies,  "penitent  seek- 
ers/' and  all.  It  is  no  uncommon  thing  in  the  cold  winters 
of  this  country  for  Baptist  ministers  to  plunge  their  sub- 
jects in  the  chilly  waters  covered  with  ice,  and  that  too, 
without  any  danger  to  their  health,  or  offensive  to  the  most 
delicate  sensibilities  of  any  one,  except  it  be  to  some  vulgar- 
minded  person. 

Article  5  of  page  93,  he  says :  "  Baptism  by  sprinkling 
can  be  performed  on  persons  who  profess  religion  on  a  dy- 
ing bed,  but  immersion  cannot."  Now  what  does  the  Dr. 
mean  by  this  ?  The  inference  is  clear  that  unless  the  dying 
man  is  baptized,  his  chances  for  heaven  are  gone,  although 
lie  professes  to  have  his  sins  pardoned.  All  his  repentance 
and  solemn  professions  of  conversion  just  before  his  soul 
takes  its  everlasting  flight,  are  vain,  unless  he  can  have  the 
preacher  to  come  and  sprinkle  a  few  drops  of  water  on  his 
head !  The  Baptists  have  no  trouble  in  such  cases.  They 
do  not  believe  God  would  require  impossibilities  of  the  dy- 
ing penitent  .  Nothing  is  said  about  the  thief  's  baptism  as 
he  was  dying  with  the  Saviour  on  the  cross.  "This  day 
thou  shalt  be  with  me  in  paradise,"  proclaimed  his  pardon, 
and  was  enough' to  fill  his  soul  with  joy.    Immersion,  it  is 


106 


true,  was  impossible  in  his  case,  but  sprinkling  or  pouring 
was  not,  and  yet  it  was  not  required  either  by  him  or  for 
him.  This  is  another  argument  that  the  ordinance  by 
sprinkling  was  not  known  at  that  time,  and  that  it  was  not 
administered  in  any  such  cases  at  all  in  any  form. 

Article  6,  on  the  same  page,  closes  his  chapter  8,  thus : 
"  Baptism  by  pouring  comports  with  decency  and  proprie- 
ty, but  does  immersion?  " 


107 


CHAPTER  VI. 

Concluding  Remarks  on  the  Mode  of  Baptism. 

We  think  we  have  established  the  fact  that  baptizo 
means  to  immerse  and  nothing  else,  when  translated  into 
English.  It  is  strange  indeed  that  writers  who  claim  to 
teach  the  truth,  should  endeavor  to  attach  three  meanings 
to  this  word,  since  the  most  learned  authors  of  every  age 
have  been  unable  to  discover  one  solitary  example  where  it 
ever  means  sprinkling  or  pouring.  We  know  some  of  them 
deny  this  ;  still  when  critically  put  to  the  test  the  same 
truthful  conclusion  is  invariably  reached .  To  say  the  word 
means  to  sprinkle  and  pour,  as  well  as  immerse,  gives  it 
three  entirely  different  actions. 

The  absurdity  of  this  claim  is  thus  exposed  by  Dr. 
Richard  Fuller.  He  says :  "  Suppose  the  word  saw,  meant 
a  saw,  an  axe,  and  a  nail;  how  would  a  carpenter  know 
what  we  mean  when  we  a  sk  for  a  saw  ?  Would  he  hand  me 
an  axe  or  a  nail?  To  say  that  a  word  has  three  distinct 
literal  meanings,  is  to  say  that  it  means  neither  of  them. 
If  there  were  such  a  word  we  should  have  to  employ  some 
other  word  to  show  which  of  the  three  things  Ave  intend. 
Ride,  for  example,  means  one  thing ;  it  means  to  ride.  It 
cannot  mean  ride  and  eat  and  walk.  Baptizo  no  more 
means  to  sprinkle  or  pour,  than  it  means  to  fly."  "No 
man,"  says  he,  "in  his  right  mind  would  think  of  immer- 
sing an  object,  say  an  apple,  and  then  contend  he  had 
sprinkled  it." 

"This  remark,"  says  President  Shannon,  "is  as  appli- 
cable to  the  Greek  as  to  the  English.  Indeed,  it  is  well 
known  that  the  Greek  excels  in  the  expression  of  different 
shades  of  ideas  with  precision  and  certainty  by  the  same 
words." 


108 


The  Rev.  J.  M.  Pendleton  thus  fairly  states:  "Now  if 
the  word  baptize  in  the  New  Testament  means  sprinkle  or 
pour  as  Pedo-Baptists  insist,  and  if  baptism  is  an  £  appli- 
cation of  water/  is  it  not  infinitely  remarkable  that  water 
is  never  said  to  be  baptized  upon  the  subject  of  the  ordi- 
nance, and  that  the  water  is  never  said  to  be  applied  ?  If 
baptize  means  sprinkle  or  pour,  the  water  is  baptized,  not 
the  person.  We  cannot  speak  of  sprinkling-  a  man  without 
an  ellipsis  or  figure  of  speech.  And  no  one  Avould  expect  to 
find  a  figure  of  speech  in  the  Apostolic  commission.  Sprink- 
ling implies  the  scattering  of  the  particles  of  the  substance 
sprinkled.  A  man  cannot  be  poured,  because  pouring  im- 
plies a  continuous  stream  of  the  substance  poured.  I  say 
again  if  baptize  in  the  NeAV  Testament  means  sprinkle  or 
pour  the  Avater  is  baptized.  But  noAAThere  is  water  found  in 
the  objective  case,  after  the  verb  baptize,  in  the  active  voice, 
nor  is  it  found  in  the  nominative  case  to  the  A7erb  in  the 
passiA^e  voice.  We  neArer  read  I  baptize  water  upon  you ; 
but  I  baptize  you.  It  is  neArer  said  AATater  Avas  baptized 
upon  them ;  but  it  is  said  £  they  Avere  baptized,  both  men 
and  Avomen.'  The  subjects  of  the  ordinance  Avere  baptized , 
the  Avater  was  not.  And,  therefore,  baptize  in  the  New 
Testament,  signifies  neither  pour  nor  sprinkle.  But  sub- 
stitute immerse  for  it  and  1ioaat  plain  and  beautiful  is  every 
baptismal  narration!  I  immerse  you,  not  the  Avater. 
They  Avere  immersed ,  that  is  the '  men  and  AA7omen . '  Those 
who  do  not  look  upon  this  statement  of  the  matter  as  con- 
clusiA^e  against  sprinkling  and  pouring,  ought  to  apply 
themseh^es  at  once  to  the  study  of  the  English  Grammar, 
even  if  they  are  Doctors  of  Divinity." 

The  celebrated  Church  historian,  Neander,  in  his  letter 
to  Jucld,  says:  "As  to  your  question  on  the  orignal  rite 
of  baptism,  there  can  be  no  doubt  Avhatever  that  in  primi- 
tiA^e  times  the  ceremony  Avas  performed  by  immersion,  to 
signify  a  complete  immersion  into  the  neAv  principle  of  life 
diAine,  Avhich  Avas  imparted  by  the  Messiah.   When  St. 


109 


Paul  says  that  through  baptism  we  are  buried  with  Christ 
and  rise  again  with  Him,  he  unquestionably  alludes  to  the 
symbol  of  dipping  into  and  rising  again  out  of  the  water. 
The  practice  of  immersion  in  the  first  centuries  was  beyond 
all  doubt  prevalent  in  the  whole  Church." 

I  might  here  quote  other  passages  from  this  learned 
Lutheran  ,  of  similar  import,  but  surely  this  ought  to  satis- 
fy any  honest  inquirer  after  truth. 

That  popular  English  divine,  Dr.  Whitb}',  says:  ''Im- 
mersion was  religiously  observed  by  all  Christians  for 
thirteen  centuries,  and  approved  by  our  Church,  and  the 
change  of  it  into  sprinkling,  even  without  any  allowance 
from  the  author  of  the  institution,  being  that  it  was  first 
introduced  by  the  Romanists. ?? 


110 


CHAPTER  VII. 

The  Greek  Prepositions. 

Great  importance  is  attached  to  the  use  of  the  Greek 
prepositions  by  Pedo-Baptist  writers,  to  disprove  the  idea 
of  immersion .  They  say  that  these  prepositions  translated 
"in,"  "into,"  and  "out  of,"  prove  nothing  of  themselves ; 
because,  they  say,  they  as  often  mean  "unto,"  "to,"  "at," 
"nearly,"  "with"  and  "from,"  and  are  so  translated  in 
various  places  in  the  New  Testament.  If  this  be  so,  then 
there  is  nothing  certain  in  the  use  of  language.  The  writer 
once  heard  a  series  of  sermons  delivered  by  a  popular 
Methodist  minister,  whom  he  highly  esteemed,'  in 
which  he  assiduously  attempted  to  prove  that  these 
prepositions  were  improperly  translated  where  they  were 
employed  to  describe  the  baptism  of  the  Saviour  and  the 
Eunuch  that  where  it  is  said  they  "  came  up  straightway 
out  of  the  water"  ought  to  have  been  translated,  from  in- 
stead of  "  out  of"  and  that  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  did  not 
go  down  "into"  the  water,  but  "at  or  near 'by, "  &c. 

We  again  beg  the  reader  to  observe  what  that  great 
law  commentator,  Blackstone,  laid  down  as  a  rule  in  the 
use  of  language,  elsewhere  quoted.  "Words  are  generally 
to  be  understood  in  their  usual  and  most  known  significa- 
tion ;  not  so  much  regarding  the  propriety  of  grammar  as 
their  general  and  popular  use." 

We  will  first  consider  the  preposition  en.  Prof.  Mell 
says :  "  The  primary  meaning  of  en  is  in,  and  not 1  with '  or 
•  at.'  "  He  says  that  "  4 en'  occurs  in  the  New  Testament 
two  thousand  seven  hundred  and  twenty  times." 


Ill 


It  is  translated  'at'  in  our  common  version  only  seven- 
ty-six times.  In  more  than  forty  of  these  seventy-six 
places  it  occurs  before  the  name  of  a  city,  as  at  Jerusalem, 
&c,  when  it  might  be  properly  translated  4 in.'  In  about 
twenty  more  of  the  seventy-six  places  referred  to  it  occurs 
in  such  expressions  as  these :  at  that  day,  at  that  hour,  &c, 
so  that  it  may  be  affirmed  that  not  ten  times  in  nearly 
three  thousand  does  the  Greek  preposition  en  mean  simply 
k  at '  in  our  English  version . 

Still  we  are  gravely  told  that  en  is  as  frequently  trans- 
lated at,  to  or  with,  as  it  is  in.  It  is  true  our  translators 
have  translated  11  en  udsiti"  "  with  water,"  which  certainly 
ought  to  have  been  in  water.  Let  us  see  how  it  is  in  other 
portions  of  the  Bible.  It  is  said  John  was  baptizing  ilen 
eremg"  in  the  wilderness,  when  if  en  is  rendered  with,  it 
would  read,  baptizing  with  the  wilderness.  So  with.  John 
when  at  Jordan :  '"They  Avere  all  baptized  of  John  with  the 
river  Jordan. ' '  Now  suppose  we  try  the  Pedo-Baptist  view, 
and  substitute  sprinkling  or  pouring  in  these  sentences. 
It  would  be :  "  John  was  sprinkling  or  pouring  with  the  wil- 
derness," and  "they  were- all  poured  with  the  river  Jor- 
dan ! ' '   What  stupid  nonsense ! 

Now  let  us  briefly  notice  that  other  common  preposi- 
tion eis,  which  literally  means  into,  but  which  our  oppo- 
nents contend  ought  to  be  translated  to ;  that  Philip  and 
the  Eunuch  only  went  to  theAvater  and  not  into  it.  If  this 
be  so,  then  Joseph  was  not  required  to  "flee  into  Egypt," 
and  in  Matthew,  8th  chapter,  the  devils  did  not  "enter  into 
the  swine,"  and  the  swine  did  not  "run  into  the  sea,"  and 
the  keepers  of  the  swine  did  not  "  go  into  the  city." 

Again,  how  could  the  "new  wine  break  the  old  bottles," 
without  being  put  into  them?  It  is  said  in  Matthew  25- 
46,  "And  these  shall  go  away  £into'  everlasting  punish- 
ment, but  the  righteous  '  into '  life  eternal."  According  to 
their  theory  they  would  get  the  wicked  and  the  righteous 
to,  at,  or  72f?&7*  fry  those  places.    But  they  readily  admit  that 


112 


it  means  into,  unless  baptismal  waters  are  referred  to. 
This  little  word  em  is  a  strange  word  indeed,  if  what  they 
say  of  it  be  true.  It  will  take  a  man  into  a  country,  into  a 
city,  into  a  house,  into  a  ship,  into  heaven,  into  hell,  into 
any  place  in  the  universe  except  the  water.  Poor,  afflicted 
word !  It  seems  to  be  seized  with  hydrophobia  every  time 
it  is  required  to  go  into  the  water !  So  says  the  Rev.  J.  M. 
Pendleton  in  his  "Three  Reasons/' 

Such  are  some  of  the  absurdities  of  our  Pedo-Baptist 
friends  to  evade  the  force  of  the  English  translation  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  of  the  original  Greek.  If  the  reader  desires 
to  investigate  the  use  of  these  controverted  terms  farther, 
he  may  consult  Drs.  Carson,  Curtis,  Mell,  Pendleton,  Pen- 
gilly  and  Booth. 

In  concluding  this  part  of  the  discussion,  Ave  maintain 
that  no  cause  can  be  true  which  requires  its  advocates  to 
resort  to  such  wormings  and  quirkings  to  support  it.  No 
wonder  the  infidel  thanked  the  Pedo-Baptist  minister  when 
he  tried  to  snow  that  the  Eunuch  went  to  the  water,  but 
not  into  it.  Eor  he  said  he  never  could  believe  that  Daniel 
was  cast  into  the  lions'  den,  or  that  the  Hebrew  boys  were 
cast  into  the  ffery  furnace,  and  now  lie  saw  there  was  no 
miracle  about  it. 


113 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

When  and  How  Pouring  and  Sprinkling  Originated. 

The  reader  is,  by  this  time,  desirous  of  knowing  at 
what  period  and  on  what  accounts  the  custom  of  pouring 
and  sprinkling  was  first  introduced.  We  have  shown  by 
quotations  from  the  standard  histories  of  the  world  that 
immersion,  was  generally  practiced  by  all  the  Churches  for 
thirteen  liundied years  after  Christ. 

Mr.  Wall,  that  great  English  divine  and  eminent 
scholar,  who  has  explored  all  the  voluminous  writers  of  an- 
tiquity, has  discovered  that  the  first  case  on  record  of 
pouring  or  sprinkling  took  place  about  the  middle  of  the 
third  century  of  the  Christian  era.  The  man's  name  was 
Xovatian,  and  it  occurred  on  this  wise:  "Xovatian  was 
taken  very  sick  and  was  like  to  die,  and  had  not  been  bap- 
tized. He  asked  and  obtained  leave  of  the  Pope  to  be  bap- 
tized in  the  bed  where  he  lay  (if  such  a  thing  could  be  called 
baptism)  and  was  sprinkled  over  in  bed;  or  water  poured 
a.  11  o  ver  him ,  as  the  word  signifies . "  Mr .  Wall  then  goes  on 
to  say :  u  Xo  vatian  recovered  of  his  sickness.  There  was  a 
vacancy  in  the  See  of  Rome  at  that  time,  (A.  I).  251.)  A 
man  by  the  name  of  Cornelius  and  this  Xovatian  were 
rival  candidates  of  the  office.  Cornelius  received  a  major- 
ity; and  Xovatian  claimed  also  to  be  chosen.  Cornelius 
writes  a  long  letter  to  Fabius,  the  Bishop  of  Antioch,  in 
which  he  describes  the  case  of  Xovatian,  and  says  that  he 
came  not  lawfully  to  his  order  of  priesthood,  much  less 
was  he  capable  of  being  chosen  Bishop;  for,  says  he,  all  the 
clergy  and  a  great  many  of  the  laity,  were  against  his  be- 


114 


ing  chosen  Presbyter;  because  it  was  not  lawful  for  any 
one  that  had  been  poured  over  in  his  bed,  as  he  had  been, 
( and  not  baptized )  to  be  admitted  to  any  office  of  the 
clergy."  ( See  Wall's  Hist.,  part  II,  chapter  IX,  Sec.  2.) 
Here  is  the  first  case  of  either  sprinkling  or  pouring,  for 
baptism,  and  here  we  see  a  serious  objection  taken  against 
Novatian,  on  account  of  his  imperfect  baptism,  or  rather 
no  baptism,  an  objection  in  which  "all  the  clergy  united," 
and  he  therefore  failed  of  his  being  Bishop. 

But  this  was  not  the  only  objection  to  Novatian,  even 
if  he  had  been  baptized,  ( immersed )  if  it  was  done  while 
was  sick.  For  there  was  an  Act  of  Council  affirmed  by  the 
12th  Canon  which  would  prevent  him  from  office.  It  reads 
thus :  "He  that  is  baptized  when  he  is  sick  ought  not  to  be 
made  a  priest,  for  his  coming  to  the  faith  is  not  voluntary, 
but  from  necessity."  In  the  second  place,  as  to  the  mode. 
While  Novatian  was  living,  one  Magnus  submits  this  ques- 
tion to  Cyprian,  viz.:  "Whether  they  are  to  be  esteemed 
right  Christians,  who  are  not  washed  in  the  water,  but  only 
sprinkled?"  Cyprian  answers,  that  "the  baptism  was  to 
be  esteemed  good,  *' necessitate  cogente,'  necessity  compell- 
ing t*o  it,  and  God  granting  his  indulgence."  Now  this  is 
the  first  case  to  be  found  on  record  where  sprinkling  or 
pouring  as  an  ordinance  is  mentioned,  and  what  is  also 
worthy  of  notice,  even  at  that  time  baptism  was  not  re- 
garded as  valid  unless  it  was  voluntary  on  the  part  of  the 
candidate;  infant  baptism  was  not  yet  known. 

Thus  began  this  substitute  for  Christian  baptism,  and 
from  this  period,  A.  D.  250,  onward,  sprinkling  was  permit- 
ted, but  only  in  case  of  necessity  and  in  prospect  of  death, 
for  it  was  falsely  believed  that  the  ordinance  was  necessary 
to  salvation.  "France,"  says  Mr.  Wall,  "seems  to  have 
been  the  first  country  in  the  world  where  baptism  by  affu- 
sion was  used  ordinarily  for  persons  in  health."  This  affu- 
sion, or  pouring,  in  the  Church  of  Rome  was  first  tolerated 
in  the  eighth  century,  while  immersion  was  still  the  estab- 


115 

lished  law  of  the  Church:  and  so  things  stood  for  several 
hundred  years. 

Sir  David  Brewster,  the  editor  of  the  Edinburg'  Ency- 
clopedia, says :  "The  first  law  for  sprinkling  was  obtained 
in  the  following  manner:  Pope  Stephen  II  being  driven 
from  Home  by  Astolphus,  King  of  the  Lombards,  in  758, 
fled  to  Pepin,  who  a  short  time  before  had  usurped  the 
crown  of  France.  While  there,  the  monks  of  Cressy ,  in  Brit- 
tany, consulted  him,  whether  in  case  of  necessity,  baptism 
performed  by  pouring  water  on  the  head  of  the  infant  would 
be  lawful.  Stephen  replied  that  it  would.''  So  we  see  that 
it  Avas  only  in  case  of  necessity  that  the  Pope  at  this  time 
would  ajlow  sprinkling  or  pouring  to  be  lawful  baptism. 
Immersion  was  the  only  mode  except  in  cases  of  necessity, 
till  the  Council  held  at  Ravenna,  in  the  year  1311,  declared 
immersion  or  sprinkling  to  be  indifferent. 

In  Scotland,  sprinkling  was  never  practiced  till  after  the 
Reformation :  and  in  England,  even  in  the  reign  of  Edward 
VI,  immersion  was  usually  observed .  Queen  Elizabeth  and 
Edward  were  both  immersed,  as  the  record  shows.  Royal- 
ty did  not  think,  like  my  friend,  that  it  was  either  indecent 
or  dangerous  to  their  health  to  follow  the  example  of 
Christ. 

Dr.  Wall  and  Prof.  Stuart,  two  of  the  most  learned  his- 
torians of  modern  times  and  both  Pedo-Baptists,  tell  us 
that  during  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  from  A.  D.,  1558  to  1603, 
sprinkling  was  not  allowed  except  in  cases  of  weak  children 
"not  strong  enough  to  be  brought  to  the  baptismal  fonts.'" 
"It  Avas  about  this  time,"  says  Dr.  Wall,  "that  many 
proud  ladies  and  gentlemen  first,  and  then  by  degrees  the 
common  people,  Avould  obtain  the  favor  of  the  Priest  to 
have  their  children  pass  for  AAreak  children  too  tender  to 
endure  dipping  in  Avater." 

Noav  if  I  have  not  shoAvn  that  sprinkling  and  pouring 
as  an  ordinance  of  baptism  first  originated  amid  the  cor- 
ruptions Avhieh  crept  into  the  Christian  Churches,  that  the 


11(5 


first  case  which  ever  occurred  in  the  history  of  the  world 
was  that  of  Novatian  above  described,  and  that  for  fifteen 
hundred  years  after  the  death  of  Christ,  it  was  used  only  in 
exceptional  cases ;  I  say  if  this  has  not  been  fully  shown, 
there  is  nothing  that  can  be  shown.  The  man  who  is  not 
convinced  by  the  testimony  so  fairly  given  to  support  this 
fact  "would  not  be  persuaded  though  one  should  rise  from 
the  dead."  "Such  a  man,  if  he  had  a  purpose  to  accom- 
plish by  it,  would  deny  that  the  sun  shone  in  the  firma- 
ment of  heaven  during  these  fifteen  centuries." 

What,  then,  is  to  be  thought  of  a  Methodist  minister,  a 
Doctor  of  Divinity,  and  one  who  writes  and  publishes  books 
for  the  public  to  read,  who  boldly  declares :  "  There  is  no 
command  to  baptize  by  immersion;"  that  "the  weight  of 
evidence  is  in  favor  of  sprinkling  or  pouring;"  that  "im- 
mersion is  without  Scriptural  authority,  and  of  really 
primitive  practice?"  I  say,  any  man  who  makes  such 
broad  and  groundless  assertions  ought  to  pause  and  study 
at  least  the  alphabetical  portions  of  Church  history.  I 
think  if  he  would  do  this  and  study  to  a-rrive  at  truth  with- 
out prejudice,  candor  and  honesty  would  induce  him  to 
publish  a  new  edition  of  the  "Armor,"  and  expunge  such 
unauthorized  and  offensive  statements.  It  is  wonderful  in- 
deed how  early  education  and  training,  combined  with  pre- 
judice, can  hold  a  good  and  devoted  Christian  man  in  bonds 
of  iron  and  will  not  permit  him  to  break  the  fetters  of  his 
bondage  and  stand  out  in  the  broad  sunlight  of  truth. 

We  have  now  concluded  our  task  which  we  assumed 
in  reply  to  Dr.  Hudson's  chapters  on  the  Gospel  Church 
and  the  mode  of  baptism,  and  leave  it  to  the  reader  to 
judge  between  us.  What  we  have  written,  we  have  written. 
While  we  have  at  times  used  strong  language,  we  have  not 
intended,  to  offend,  and  certainly  have  not  written  aught 
with  malice. 


117 


i 

CHAPTER  IX. 

We  next  invite  the  reader  to  follow  us  in  the  examina- 
tion of  the  Doctor's  chapter  IX,  on  Infant  Baptism,  page 
94,  " Armor."  Before  we  take  up  his  line  of  argument,  we 
attempt  first  to  prove  that  the  Pope  of  Rome,  "that  man 
of  sin,  "  is  the  author  of  infant  baptism. 

For  fifteen  centuries  infant  baptism  has  existed  in  the 
corrupt  Romish  apostacv,  and  all  "the  Churches"  in 
Europe,  which  can  trace  their  origin  to  Rome  have  main- 
tained Its  existence  since  their  origin.  It  is  found  in  this 
country  as  well  as  in  Europe,  connected  with  all  those 
ecclesiastical  organizations  whether  founded  by  Wesley, 
Calvin,  Luther  or  Henry  the  Eighth,  and  held  in  impor- 
tance in  proportion  as  they  approximate  in  form  to  the 
Romish  Hierarchy.  Had  there  never  been  a  kind  of  super- 
stitious faith  that  in  baptizing  infants  the  original  sin  at- 
tached to  them  was  in  some  mysterious  way  washed  away , 
we  should  never  have  heard  of  such  a  custom,  or  of  infant 
church  membership.  Had  the  New  Testament  been  the 
only  guide  of  professing  Christians,  in  regard  to  the  Church, 
that  it  is  a  company  of  believers,  baptized  upon  a  profes- 
sion of  their  faith,  and  associated  together  to  "keep  the 
ordinances  once  delivered  to  the  saints  "  by  Christ  and  his 
Apostles,  the  world  avouM  not  have  to  Avitness  the  schisms,, 
the  confusion  and  animosities  which  rend  and  distract 
Christian  bodies  to  the  mortification  and  anguish  of  the 
true  and  humble  followers  of  Christ. 


118 

There  is  no  mention  of  it  anywhere  in  the  Scriptures, 
nor  did  the  Apostles  or  early  disciples  ever  practice  it.  The 
Papacy  found  its  origin,  and  whatever  changes  or  modifi- 
cations this  Mystery  of  Babylon  may  undergo  to  suit  the 
different  times  and  nations,  its  wicked  influence  and  power 
can  never  be  utterly  destroyed  so  long  as  infant  baptism, 
the  "  main  pillar  and  ground  "  of  it  remains.  Infant  bap- 
tism has  never  been  the  occasion  of  any  good.  Its  influ- 
ence has  been  evil  and  only  evil  continually. 

The  Baptists  and  those  who  have  held  similar  views, 
under  whatever  names  they  have  been  called,  from  the 
earliest  introduction  of  it,  have  never  ceased  to  resist  its 
propagation  and  wage  an  unceasing  war  with  tongue  and 
pen  against  it,  even  tho'  in  ancient  times  it  subjected  them 
to  the  stake,  the  gibbet  and  death  in  all  the  cruelties  human 
fiends  could  invent;  and  in  modern  times  to  imprisonment, 
the  confiscation  of  their  property,  and  everywhere  the  ob- 
jects of  hatred,  scorn,  persecution  and  contempt  of  all  re- 
ligious sects  combined. 

The  reader  may  think  these  are  very  strong  assertions  , 
but  if  we  fail  to  prove  them  it  will  not  be  for  the  wrant  of 
abundant  authority  accessible  to  the  searcher  after  truth. 

For  more  than  two  hundred  years  after  the  Christian 
era,  there  is  no  trace  of  infant  baptism  found  in  any  his- 
tory. We  never  find  any  mention  of  it  till  the  notion  pre- 
vailed that  baptism  is  essential  to  salvation.  This  corrup- 
tion crept  into  the  churches  and  increased  with  Papal 
powrer  till  it  became  one  of  the  chief  instruments  in  perpet- 
uating its  supremacy. 

Some  time  during  the  third  century  it  is  recorded  that 
a  certain  wealthy  lady  whose  name  was  Quintilla,  wrote  a 
letter  to  Tertullian,  the  Bishop  of  the  Church  at  Carthage, 
to  get  his  sanction  to  baptize  her  infant,  and  his  answer  to 
this  letter  has  been  preserved  and  contains  the  first  allu- 
sion t  o  the  baptism  of  children  which  is  recorded  in  the  an- 
nals of  Church  history.   He  said  to  her:  "Those  who  ad- 


119 


minister  baptism  know  very  well  that  it  is  not  to  be  rashly 
given.''  He  went  on  further  to  show  to  her  in  this  same 
letter,  at  length,  that  children  should  first  be  instructed, 
and  when  they  understand  Christianity,  let  them  profess  it 
and  then  be  baptized. 

Cyprian,  the  successor  of  Tertullian  in  the  Church  at 
Carthage,  received  a  letter  from  a  man  by  the  name  of 
Fidus,  asking  how  soon  after  birth  it  might  be  proper  to 
baptize?  Cyprian  it  seems  was  not  able  to  answer  this 
strange  and  new  question,  but  called  a  council  of  sixty- 
seven  of  his  brother  bishops  of  North  Africa  who  gave  it  as 
their  opinion,  "that  a  child  might  be  kissed  with  the  kiss  of 
charity  as  a  brother,  so  soon  as  it  is  born."  It  was  this 
same  Cyprian,  who  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  water  poured 
about  a  person  in  bed  ( if  he  were  sick  and  could  not  be  im- 
mersed) would  answer  in  the  place  of  baptism.  But  his- 
tory informs  us  that  neither  Cyprian  nor  his  sixty-seven 
bishops  could  influence  mothers  to  baptize  their  infants 
till  another  solemn  council  was  called  by  the  priests  and 
bishops,  about  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century,  more  on 
account  of  their,  purses  than  the  souls  of  the  little  babes, 
and  passed  a  decree  that i:  infants  ought  to  be  ba  ptized  for 
the  remission  of  sins  and  that  all  w  ho  denied  this  doctrine 
should  be  accursed."  Previous  to  this,  great  multitudes 
of  believers,  grieved  at  this  and  other  corruptions  creeping 
into  the  churches,  had  withdrawn  and  formed  separate  so- 
cieties of  their  own,  retaining  the  simplicity  of  the  ordi- 
dances  as  practiced  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles. 

The  Catholic  bishop,  Augustine,  represents  them  as 
asking,  "What  good  the  sacrament  of  Christ's  baptism 
could  do  unconscious  infants  ?"  They  were  told  that  "  who- 
ever denies  that  little  children  by  baptism  are  freed  from 
perdition  and  eternally  saved,  that  they  be  accursed.'' 
This  was  about  the  year  417.  The  Pope  thus  introduced 
and  established  infant  baptism  and  baptismal  salvation, 
and  issued  hisfulminating  decree  against  those  who  oppos- 


120 


ed  it,  with  his  death  penalty  affixed.  But  the  stubborn- 
hearted,  (and  as  Dr.  H.  calls  them),  the  narrow-hearted 
Baptists  resisted  this  satanic  custom ;  they  refused  to  bap- 
tize their  children ;  they  disowned  the  baptism  of  the  Catho- 
lics by  refusing  to  receive  them  into  their  churches  till  they 
had  been  baptized  by  themselves.  This  the  Catholics  call- 
ed re-baptism,  or  ana-baptism,  and  thus  the  name  Ana- 
Baptists,  which  has  been  applied  to  us  almost  to  the  pres- 
ent day.  The  strong  arm  ol  the  secular  power  was  turned 
against  them.  A  decree  was  procured  from  the  Emperor 
that  not  only  those  who  re-baptized  but  those  who  denied 
the  baptism  of  infants  should  be  put  to  death. 

Says  Gibbon,  the  historian:  "By  this  law,  three  hun- 
dred bishops  ( pastors )  and  several  thousand  of  their  mem- 
bers were  torn  from  their  churches,  stripped  of  their  pos- 
sessions and  banished  to  the  islands."  The  doctrine  of 
baptismal  regeneration,  gave  rise  to  infant  baptism,  pur- 
gatory, and  all  those  abominable  customs,  such  as  being- 
daubed  with  priests'  spittle,  walking  from  the  water  with 
lighted  tapers,  confirmation  by  bishops,  &c,  having  their 
origin  and  propagation  in  a  wicked  superstition  and  greed 
for  gain  ,  in  ancient  times,  and  fragments  of  it  still  clinging 
to  large  bodies  of  zealous  and  useful  Christians  of  modern 
times. 

In  the  year  1842,  a  manuscript  of  Hippolytus,  was 
found  in  an  Armenian  convent  onMount  Athos,in  Turkey. 
This  work  has  been  carefully  examined  by  eminent  scholars 
a  nd  there  is  no  doubt  of  its  being  genuine.  It  appears  that 
this  man,  Hippolytus,  was  pastor  of  the  Church  at  Pontus, 
near  the  mouth  of  the  Tiber  river,  in  Italy,  and  that  he  had 
been  a  pupil  of  Iraeneus,  and  wrote  this  work  about  225 
years  after  Christ.  Speaking  of  baptism  he  says:  "We  in 
our  day  never  defended  the  baptism  of  children,  which  had 
only  begun  to  be  practiced  in  some  regions,  unless  it  were 
as  an  exception  and  innovation.  The  baptism  of  infants 
we  did  not  know." 


121 


Dr.  Bun  sen,  the  translator,  adds:  "The  baptism  of  new 
born  infants  was  utterly  unknown  to  the  early  churches, 
not  only  down  to  the  end  of  the  second  century,  but  indeed 
to  the  middle  of  the  third.'"  And  Dr.  Bunsen  was  not  a 
Baptist.  * 

Clemens  and  Ignatius,  who  were  cotemporary  with 
Paul  and  John,  and  whose  writings  are  held  in  high  esteem 
among  scholars,  mention  nowhere  the  baptism  of  children 
and  only  of  those  who  were  instructed  and  believed. 


122 


CHAPTER  X. 
Infant  Baptism,  Page  94,  "  Akmok." 
Dr.  II .  says:  1.  "In  tracing  back  the  history  of  the 
Jewish  Church,  we  find  that  infants  were  members  of  that 
Church.  This  right  of  infant  membership  was  established 
when  that  Church  was  organized."  "Every  man  child 
among  you  shall  be  circumcised."  "  He  that  is  eight  days 
old  shall  be  circumcised. ' '  "  He  that  is  uncircumcised  shall 
be  cutoff." 

2.  "The  door  through  which  children  entered  into  the 
Old  Testament  Church  was  circumcision." 

3.  "'The  visible  Church  of  God  has  always  been  the 
same.  The  Christian  Church  to-day  is  the  Old  Testament 
Church  purged  from  the  apostate  Jews.  And  around  this 
purged  Church,  the  New  Testament  Church  was  formed.  " 

4.  "The  right  of  infant  membership  existing  in  the 
Church  has  never  been  repealed.   It  stands  intact  to-day. 

_No  change  has  occurred.  No  proclamation  has  been  made 
repealing  the  law  of  infant  membership.  And  it  is  a  well 
known  fact  that  a  law  once  passed  remains  in  force  until 
formally  repealed.  Now  as  infants  were  members  of  the 
Jewish  Church,  and  as  the  Gospel  Church  is  but  a  continu- 
ance of  the  Jewish,  and  no  repeal  having  taken  place  of  this 
law  of  infant  membership,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable  tha  t 
the  right  of  infant  membership  remains  intact." 

5 .  "  Circumcision  with  other  forms  of  the  Jewish  Churcl i 
gave  way  to  baptism  in  the  Christian  Church.  Baptism.. 


123 


like  circumcision,  is  an  initiatory  right  of  admission  into 
the  visible  Church.  As  circumcision  was  the  gate  for  the 
Jew  and  the  Gentile  proselyte  into  the  Jewish  Church ;  so 
baptism  is  the  door  into  the  Christian  Church.  Once  more, 
baptism,  like  circumcision,  is  a  sign  and  seal  of  God's  cov- 
enant. The  children  of  believers  hold  a  similar  relation  to 
the  Christian  Church  as  the  Jewish  children  did  to  the  Jew- 
ish Church,  the  former  entering  the  Church  by  baptism,  the 
latter  by  circumcision." 

As  a  proof  of  the  above,  Dr.  H.  quotes  Romans  11, 18,- 
24.  This  is  the  same  old  story  held  by  mostPedo-Baptist 
authors.  Since  they  cannot  find  any  authority  for  infant 
baptism  in  the  New  Testament,  any  practice  of  it  by  Christ 
or  his  Apostles,  they  infer  it  by  claiming  the  Christian 
Church  is  a  substitute  or  continuation  of  what  they  call 
the  "  Jewish  Church,''  which  included  infants. 

The  Jewish  theocracy  and  the  Christian  Chinch  are 
not  identical. 

The  word  Church  does  not  occur  in  the  Old  Testament ; 
but  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  let  us  call  that  organiza- 
tion of  the  Jews,  "The  Old  Jewish  Church,  "  and  proceed  to 
show  that  the  Christian  Church  is  in  no  way  identical  with 
it  or  a  u  continuance  "  of  it.  , 

1st.  According  to  the  prophets  a  new  kingdom  was  to 
be  set  up,  while  the  Jewish  organization-,  which  had  been  in 
existence  for  centuries,  was  to  pass  away.  ''And  in  the 
days  of  these  kings  shall  the  God  of  Heaven  set  up  a  king- 
dom, which  shall  never  be  destroyed,  and  the  kingdom 
shall  not  be  left  to  other  people,  but  it  shall  break  in  pieces 
and  consume  all  these  kingdoms,  and  it  shall  stand  for- 
ever." Daniel  II,  14.  The  language  is  clear  that  this  neAV 
kingdom  refers  to  the  one  Christ  was  to  set  up,  and  it  was 
to  be  a  new  one — not  a  "  continuance  "  of  the  old  or  even  a 
substitute  for  it.  There  is  no  intimation  that  the  old 
Jewish  kingdom  was  to  be  re-organized  or  continued  in  any 
form.   John  referred  to  it  when  he  said,  " Repent  ye:  for 


124 


the  kingdom  of  Heaven  is  at  hand."  Was  this  the  old 
Jewish  Church? 

In  the  beginning  of  his  ministry  Jesus  proclaimed  this 
new  kingdom  was  at  hand.  "The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the 
kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand :  repent  ye  and  believe  the  gos- 
pel." Mark  1-15.  The  prophecy  of  Daniel  is  fulfilled.  A 
new  dispensation  is  at  hand.  Such  language  had  never- 
been  heard  before :  "  Repent  ye  and  believe  the  gospel."  A 
new  era  has  commenced.  Christ  said:  "The  law  and  the 
prophets  Avere  until  John :  since  that  time  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  preached  and  every  man  presseth  into  it."  This 
does  not  look  like  the  old  Jewish  Church  and  the  one  Christ 
set  up  were  the  same.  If  infants  were  members  of  the  old 
Church,  how  could  they  be  members  of  this  new  one  which 
required  repentance  and  faith  before  they  could  be  included 
in  it  ?  There  surely  can  be  no  argument  here  for  infant  bap- 
tism, no  intimation  of  it. 

Again :  John  the  Baptist  told  the  members  of  the  Jew- 
ish Church  to  repent  and  bring  forth  works  meet  for  repent- 
ance before  he  would  receive  them  to  baptism.  He  called 
them  a  "generation  of  vipers."  They  might  be  worthy 
members  of  the  old,  but  utterly  unfit  for  the  Church  of 
Christ.  The  Saviour  told  Nicodemusthathe  must  be  born 
again  before  he  could  become  a  fit  subject  for  his  Church, 
and  yet  he  was  an  officer  of  high  rank  in  the  Jewish  Church. 
He  said  to  the  scribes,  who  were  the  doctors  in  the  Jewish 
Church :  "Ye  shut  up  the  kingdom  of  heaven  against  men, 
for  ye  neither  go  in  yourselves,  neither  suffer  ye  them  that 
are  entering  to  go  in." 

Now,  according  to  this  language  of  the  Saviour,  both 
kingdoms  were  in  existence  at  the  same  time.  If  Christ's 
kingdom  was  not  in  existence  it  could  not  be  "shut  up," 
and  if  they  were  the  same  the  scribes  were  already  in  it. 
But  they  were  not  in  it,  for  he  tells  them,  "ye  neither  go  in 
yourselves  neither  suffer  others,"  &c.  If  then  they  were  in 
the  Jewish  Church  and  not  in  the  Christian  Church,  they 


125 


certainly  could  not  be  the  same,  or  one  the  "continuance'' 
of  the  other,  notwithstanding  Dr.  H.  declares  that  "the 
Christian  Church  to-day  is  the  Old  Testament  Church."  * 
*  *  He  says  "  around  this  purged  Old  Testament  Church, 
as  a  nucleus,  the  New  Testament  Church  was  formed."  He 
quotes  John  the  Baptist  and  Paul  in  Romans  11  to  prove 
his  assertion.  He  says :  "By  the  good  olive  tree,  Paul  can 
mean  nothing  but  the  Jewish  Churches,"  &c.  The  Apostle 
seems  to  me  hereto  ad  vance  a  different  idea  from  my  friend. 
He  says  to  the  Jews  that  God  has  not  cast  off  all  Israel, 
tho'  as  a  nation  they  rejected  Christ  and  put  him  to  death, 
yet  a  remnant  should  be  saved  according  t  o  the  election  of 
grace.  He  says  to  the  Gentiles:  "Boast  not  against  the 
branches,"  the  natural  branches,  the  Jews.  Do  not  exult 
over  them  as  if  you  were  naturally  better  than  they  and 
were  in  no  danger. 

In  Ephesians,  II,  11-13,  "Wherefore  remember,  that 
ye  being  in  time  past  Gentiles  in  the  flesh,  who  are  called 
uncircumcision  by  that  which  is  called  circumcision  in  the 
flesh  made  by  hands;  that  at  the  time  ye  were  without 
Christ,  being  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  and 
strangers  from  the  covenants  of  promises,  having  no  hope 
and  without  God  in  the  word ;  but  now  in  Christ  Jesus  ye 
who  were  afar  off,  are  made  nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ." 
Paul  completely  refutes  the  identity  idea  of  the  two 
Churches  at  the  beginning  of  the  chapter,  Romans  II.  Says 
he:  "For  I  also  am  an  Israelite,  of  the  seed  of  Abraham, 
of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin."  He  was  therefore  a  circumcised 
member  of  the  Jewish  Church,  and  yet  he  became  a  member 
of  the  Christian  Church  by  repentance,  faith  and  baptism. 
Why  was  this,  if,  as  Dr.  H.  asserts,  the  two  Churches  were 
one  and  the  same  ?  If  baptism  has  taken  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision, why  was  Paul  commanded  to  receive  baptism, 
having  also  been  circumcised?  Dr.  H.  says:  "Baptism, 
like  circumcision  is  an  initiatory  rite  of  admission  into  the 
visible  Clmrch.   As  circumcision  was  the  gate  for  tlie  Jew 


126 


and  the  Gentile  proselyte  into  the  Jewish  Church,  so  bap- 
tism is  the  door  into  the  Christian  Church.''  He  says, 
"Baptism  like  circumcision,  is  a  sign  and  seal  of  God's 
covenant." 

II.  The  Two  Covenants  Examined. 

There  are  two,  the  covenant  of  circumcision  and  the 
covenant  of  grace. 

Our  Pedo-Baptist  friends  insist  that  there  was  but  one 
covenant — they  ivill  not  say  covenants — while  Paul  speaks 
of  "  covenants, "  "  covenants  t>f  promise, "  the  "  two  cove- 
nants, "  &c.  How  they  can  make  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision and  the  covenant  of  grace  one  and  the  same  defies 
comprehension.  The  gospel  covenant,  or -covenant  of 
grace,  was  not  made  with  Abraham,  it  was  confirmed  to 
Abraham.  It  was  made  before;  it  must  have  been  in  ex- 
istence or  it  could  not  have  been  confirmed,  for  the  confir- 
mation of  anything  implies  its  previous  existence.  Paul 
says:  "The  covenant  that  was  confirmed  before  of  God 
in  Christ,  the  law  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years 
after,  cannot  disannul  that  it  should  make  the  promise  of 
none  effect."  The  covenant  with  respect  to  the  Messiah 
was  confirmed  to  Abraham  when  he  was  seventy-five  years 
old,  (Genesis  12,)  and  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was 
made  with  him  when  he  was  ninety-nine  years  old.  (Gene- 
sis 17.)  So  there  were  twenty-four  years  intervening  be- 
tween the  two  transactions.  Now  if  the  gospel  covenant 
was  made  with  Abraham,  and  if  circumcision  wa  s  the  seal 
of  that  covenant,  then  it  had  no  seal  for  twenty-four  years 
after  it  was  made.  And  if  this  covenant  of  grace  was  made 
with  Abraham  by  what  provisions  were  those  saved  who 
lived  before  Abraham,  Abel,  Enoch  and  others? 

Dr.  H.  can  here  see  how  absurd  is  his  theory  that  the 
gospel  covenant  and  Jewish  circumcision  a  re  the  same  and 
from  it  argue  that  infant  baptism  is  taught  in  the  Script- 
ures.  Neither  circumcision  nor  baptism  is  anywhere  refer- 


127 


red  to  by  the  sacred  writers  as  a  ' 4  seal ' '  of  a  covenant.  Cir- 
cumcision is  called  a  "token  of  the  covenant"  God  made 
with  Abraham,  and  a  "  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith 
which  he  had,  yet  being  uncircumcised."  It  was  never  a 
seal  of  the  righteousness  of  any  other  man. 

Again ,  the  seal  of  circumcision  was  applied  to  but  one  sex 
and  if  baptism  comes  in  the  room  of  circumcision,  why  are  fe- 
males included  ?  The  whole  Jewish  Church  was  composed 
entirely  of  males.  If  therefore  you  could  prove  everything 
else,  you  would  still  have  no  warrant  for  the  baptism  of  fe- 
male infants,  according  to  the  argument  of  circumcision. 
The  painful  ordinance  of  circumcision  was  administered  to 
infants,  not  for  moral  but  for  physical  reasons,  and  only  to 
males.  "  Circumcision  was  a  seal  to  none  but  Abraham," 
says  Dr.  MelL  There  is  only  one  place  in  the  Bible  where 
circumcision  is  called  a  seal,  and  then  it  is  said  to  be  a  seal, 
not  of  the  faith  of  Abraham  but  of  the  righteousness  of  the 
faith  which  he  had.  See  Rom.  IV-2 :  ff  And  he  received  the 
sign  of  circumcision ;  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith 
which  he  had,  yet  being  uncircumcised . ' '  This  does  not  say 
as  our  opponents  quote  it,  that  circumcision  was  a  sign  and 
seal  of  Abraham's  faith,  but  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
that  faith. 

Circumcision  was  a  seal  only  to  Abraham,  and  not  of 
his  faith  but  of  the  righteousness  of  his  faith.  Baptism  is 
nowhere  in  the  Scriptures  said  to  be  a  seal  of  anything  to 
its  subjects.  The  only  "seal"  whick  Ave  find  in  the  New 
Testament  is  in  reference  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  if  whereby  he 
is  sealed  to  the  day  of  redemption.''  Eph.  IV-30.  When 
sinners  believe  in  Christ,  they  are  sealed  with  that  Holy 
Spirit  of  promise  which  is  the  i;  earnest  of  their  inheritance 
until  the  redemption  of  the  purchased  possession."  Eph. 
1-1*3.  "  And  this  is  not  applicable  to  unconcious  babes  but 
to  the  intelligent  believer  in  Christ."  In  fact,  this  whole 
subject  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  is  so  involved  in  the 
mysteries  of  God's  eternal  purposes,  it  is  wonderfully 


128 


strange  that  our  Pedo-Baptist  friends  seek  to  find  in  it  any 
intelligent  support  for  infant  baptism,  Can  it  be  possible 
that  God  has  so  concealed  the  evidences  of  one  of  His  posi- 
tive commands,  as  to  require  us  to  resort  to  the  deep  and 
hidden  mysteries  of  the  Old  Testament  to  find  what  is  our 
dut v  ?  The  gospel  and  its  ordinances  were  never  designed 
for  infants,  but  only  for  those  old  enough  to  understand  it 
and  believe  it  .  The  new  or  gospel  covenant  is  thus  express- 
ed :  "  Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  make 
a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel  and  the  house  of  Ju- 
dah .  I  mWt  put  my  law  in  their  inward  parts,  an  d  write  it  in 
their  hearts ;  and  I  will  be  their  God ,  and  they  shall  be  my  peo- 
ple. And  they  shall  teach  no  more  every  man  his  neighbor, 
and  every  man  his  brother,  saying,  Know  the  Lord,  for  they 
shall  all  know  me,  from  the  least  of  them  unto  the  greatest 
of  them,  saith  the  Lord."  ( Jer.  XXX-31-33-34.  Seealso 
Heb.  VIII-10-11.)  God's  law  is  to  be  written  in  the  mind 
and  heart  of  all  included  in  this  new  covenant.  Does  not 
this  effectually  exclude  infants,  as  they  are  all  to  know 
him,  from  the  least  unto  the  greatest?  If  you  make  the 
Abrahamic  covenant  and  the  gospel  covenant  the  same,  it 
is  an  argument  against  the  baptism  of  infants.  There  is  a 
covenant  by  which  infants  are  saved,  but  it  is  not  the  Abra- 
hamic or  gospel  covenant ;  it  is  the  covenant  of  the  Father 
with  His  Son  in  which  he  engaged  to  die  to  redeem  them. 

That  distinguished  Pedo-Baptist  divine,  Prof.  Stuart, 
after  going  over  the# whole  ground,  concludes  by  saying: 
"The  Abrahamic  covenant  furnishes  no  ground  for  infant 
baptism."  Again:  If  the  Jewish  nation  was  a  Church  of 
God  it  could  not  be  the  same  as  the  Christian  Church,  or 
sustain  any  relation  to  it  .  The  Saviour  said  to  his  disciples 
that  "He  had  chosen  them  out  of  the  world,  therefore  the 
world  hateth  you." — John  15-19.  And  yet  these  disciples 
were  members  in  good  standing  in  the  so-called  Jewish 
Church;  they  had  all  been  circumcised.  But  this  availed 
them  nothing.   The  religion  of  the  Jews  and  the  wicked- 


129 

Bess  of  the  Gentiles  stood  on  the  same  level.  Thev  all  were 
required  t  o  repent,  believe  and  be  baptized  before  they  were 
admitted  into  the  Christian  Church.  Paul  makes  this  mat- 
ter plain  in  regard  to  the  religion  of  the  Jews  and  the 
Church  of  God  :  "  For  ye  haA^e  heard  of  my  conversation  in 
time  past  in  the  Jews'  religion,  how  that  beyond  measure  I 
persecuted  the  Church  of  God,  and  wasted  it."— Gal.  1-13. 
It  is  true  that  God  had  given  to  the  Jew  the  revelation  of 
his  will  and  thus  he  had  the  advantage .  ' '  What  advantage 
then  hath  the  Jew,  or  what  profit  is  there  in  circumcision  ? 
Much  every  way :  chiefly  because  tha  t  unto  them  were  com- 
mitted the  oracles  of  God." — Romans  3-1.  But  when  the 
Jews  rejected  Christ  these  privileges  were  withdrawn  from 
them  and  conferred  upon  the  Gentiles. 

Dr.  Barnes,  that  great  Presbyterian  divine,  says :  "The 
Gentiles  had  been  like  the  wild  olive,  unfruitful  in  holiness ; 
that  they  had  been  uncultivated  by  the  institutions  of  true 
religion,  and  consequently  had  grown  up  in  the wildness of 
sin  and  nature,  Avhile  the  Jews  had  been  like  a  cultivated 
olive,  long  under  the  training  and  blessing  of  God."  But 
if  we  were  to  grant  that  the  Christian  Church  was  a  contin- 
uance of  the  old  Jewish  organization,  this  would  not  prove 
infant  baptism,  for  infants  were  born  in  the  "Jewish 
Church  "  and  not  admitted  into  it  by  circumcision  as  is  al- 
leged. Circumcision  kept  them  in  the  Jewish  nation;  it 
was  not,  as  our  opponents  say,  an  "initiatory  rite"  at  all. 
"And  the  uncircumcised  man-child,  whose  flesh  of  his  fore- 
skin is  not  circumcised,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  his 
people. ' '  (Gen.  XVII,  14. )  But  what  will  they  do  with  the 
female  children  ?  Since  they  were  not  circumcised,  and  bap- 
tism comes  in  the  room  of  circumcision  and  the  one  is  the 
"continuance"  of  the  other,  they  must  find  some  other 
reason  for  baptizing  the  female  babes.  But  the  Bible  no- 
where intimates  that  baptism  takes  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision. 

How  such  an  idea  ever  got  into  the  minds  of  our  breth- 


130 


ren  is  beyond  the  reach  of  imagination.  If  it  had  been  the 
ease,  why  did  the  Church  of  Antioch,  send  Paul  and  Bar- 
nabas up  to  Jerusalem  to  obtain  information  in  regard  to 
the  doctrine  that  "except  they  be  circumcised,  after  the 
manner  of  Moses  they  could  not  be  saved,"  which  certain 
men  taught  that  came  down  from  Judea?  (Acts.  XY.) 
How  easily  could  this  trouble  have  been  settled  by  teach- 
ing them  that  baptism  had  taken  the  place  of  circumcision 
and  silenced  their  dissensions.  But  no  such  thinghadever 
entered  their  minds.  It  would  have  been  so  natural  for 
them  to  have  spoken  of  this  substitute  in  their  dispute 
with  the  Judaizing  party,  if  at  that  time  there  had  been 
any  practice  of  it  among  the  churches.  Yet  not  the  most 
distant  allusion  is  even  made,  that  baptism  was  now  sub- 
stituted for  circumcision. 

To  keep  their  nationality  Paul  made  no  objection  to 
the  Jews  circumcising  their  children ;  but  when  they  wished 
to  connect  it  in  any  manner  with  the  idea  of  salvation,-  he 
expressly  told  them  that"  circumcision  profiteth  nothing/ ' 
It  is  clear,  beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt,  that  if  baptism 
became  a  substitute  for  circumcision  it  would  have  been  so 
stated  in  the  discussion  in  the  Council  held  at  Jerusalem 
where  the  Apostle  and  Elders  met  to  settle  the  dispute 
about  keeping  up  the  practice  of  circumcision  among  the 
churches .  Had  there  been  a  Ped o-Baptist  brother  there  he 
would  have  told  them  how  baptism  had  been  adopted  as  a 
substitute  and  thus  endeavored  to  silence  their  cavils .  But 
Paul  and  Barnabas  and  Peter  and  John  decided  the  matter 
in  a  different  way,  and  left  it  to  the  invention  of  wicked  men 
who  imposed  it  upon  their  superstitious  followers  long  after 
Christ  and  his  Apostles  had  gone  home  to  the  Father. 

If  we  take  a  mere  inference  as  authority  for  one  of  the 
ordinances  of  the  Church  we  run  into  inextricable  mazes 
without  hope  of  rescue.  If  the  "Church  of  England'' 
should  infer  the  union  of  Church  and  State  from  the  Jewish 
theocracy ;  if  the  Pope  of  Rome  should ,  on  the  sa  me  ground , 


181 


maintain  that  one  man  should  be  at  the  head  of  "'the 
Church''  like  the  Jewish  High  Priest;  that  the  sacrifice  of 
the  mass  is  Scriptural,  because  the  priests  in  the  "Jewish 
Church  "  offered  sacrifices  for  the  sins  of  the  people  ;  that 
the  Pope  is  infallible,  because  the  High  Priest  could  deliver 
oracles  by  consulting  Brim ;  that  there  are  seven  sacra- 
ments, because  the  number  seven  forms  a  conspicuous  fig- 
ure in  the  Hebrew  ritual ;  that  women  may  baptize  their 
infants,  because  a  Jewish  mother  circumcised  her  child,  I 
say,  if  all  such  inferences  are  advocated,  what  answer  could 
our  opponents  return  ?  For  the  baptism  of  infants  rests 
on  the  same  foudation  and  is  supported  by  the  sa  me  argu- 
ments. 


132 


CHAPTER  XI. 

Christ's  Kecognition  of  Infant  Baptism."   Page  96 
"  Armor." 

''Proofs."  "  There  were  brought  unto  him  little  chil- 
dren tha/t  he  should  put  his  hands  on  them  and  pray,  and 
the  disciples  rebuked  them.  But  Jesus  said,  Suffer  little 
children  and  forbid  them  not  to  come  to  me,  for  of  such  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  And  he  laid  his  hands  on  them 
and  departed  thence."  Matt,  XIX-13-15.  "And  they 
brought  unto  him  also  infants  that  he  would  touch  them : 
but  when  his  disciples  saAv  it  they  rebuked  them .  But  Jesus 
called  them  unto  him  and  said,  Suffer  little  children  to  come 
unto  me  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
God.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  whosoever  shall  not  receive 
the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  shall  in  no  wise  enter 
therein."   Luke  XVIII-15-17. 

Dr.  Hudson  then  proceeds  to  comment  as  follows: 
i 'Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me  *  *  *  *  for  of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  God." 

He  says:  "What  is  the  meaning  of  the  kingdom  of 
God?"  "The  kingdom  is  sometimes  used  .to* signify  the 
visible  Church  on  earth."  "  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like 
a  net  that  was  cast  into  the  sea  and  gathered  of  every 
kind."— Matt.  13-47.  " Then  again," he  says,  "it  is  used 
to  mean  the  Church  of  God  in  a  state  of  glory.  \  Now  this 
I  say  brethren,  flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom 


133 

of  God. '  If  we  take  the  first  meaning  then  the  passage 
would  read :  '  For  of  such  is  the  visible  Church,  or  such  be- 
longed to  the  Church  on  earth.'  The  Church  Avas  then  the 
Old  Testament  Church.  The  day  of  Pentecost  had  not 
come ;  the  Christian  Church  come  of  the  Old  into  the  New. 
These  children  being  the  children  of  Jewish  parents  had 
been  introduced  into  that  Church  by  circumcision.  They 
were  then  members  of  that  Jewish  Church."  "  Hence,"  he 
says,  "such  are  members  of  the  Church,  of  the  kingdom  of 
God. ' '  ' '  Or, ' '  says  he,  ' '  let  us  take  the  other  meaning  that 
the  kingdom  of  God  means  the  heavenly  state.  Then  it 
teaches  that  all  children  are  born  into  a  salvable  state. 
The  atonement  of  Christ  puts  them  in  a  state  of  salvation. 
The  Bible  authorizes  us  to  baptize  all  persons  avIio  are  fit 
subjects,  be  they  infants  or  adults.  If  a  grown  person  be 
a  fit  subject,  or  if  a  child  be  a  fit  subject,  baptize  him.  And 
for  this  reason  it  is  not  necessary  to  have  an  express  com- 
mand to  baptize  infants.  There  is  no  command  to  baptize 
persons  ten,  twenty,  fifty  or  one  year  old.  The  command 
is  to  baptize  all  who  are  fit  subjects  of  the  kingdom,  young: 
or  old."  He  then  concludes  this  part  of  his  argument  in 
the  following  language :  "  We  are  shut  up  to  one  of  two 
conclusions :  either  infants  are  not  fit  to  go  to  heaven,  or 
admit  their  fitness  for  baptism.  For  if  you  admit  their 
fitness  for  heaven  that  implies  that  they  have  saving  grace, 
and  saving  grace  is  universally  conceded  to  be  the  ground 
of  baptism.  We  must  believe  then  either  the  horrid  doc- 
trine of  infant  damnation,  or  the  doctrine  of  infant  bap- 
tism. " 

Now  let  us  briefly  review  this  stronghold  of  Methodism 
in  support  of  infant  baptism.  The  passages  of  Scripture 
above  quoted  by  Dr.  H.  and  so  much  relied  on  by  our  op- 
ponents in  proof  of  their  teaching,  say  not  one  word  about 
infant  baptism  or  infant  Church  membership.  Those  who ; 
brought  little  children,  desired  that  Christ  should  touch 
them  ;  and, .he  took  them  np  in  his  arms,  put  his  hands  on 


134 


them  and  blessed  them.  Ahi  how  much  would  Dr.  H.  and 
his  friends  give,  if  the  Scripture  had  said,  and  He  baptized 
them,  instead  of  saying,  "  He  blessed  them."  But  it  is  dis- 
tinctly declared  that  "Jesus  did  not  baptize  at  all,  but  his 
Disciples."  And  if  the  baptism  of  the  children  was  here  in- 
tended why  did  the  Apostles  rebuke  them  who  brought 
them  to  the  Saviour?  If  it  had  been  customary  for  little 
children  to  be  brought  by  their  parents  to  have  them  bap- 
tized, does  it  not  seem  strange  that  the  Apostles  would  here 
rise  up  and  rebuke  them  in  the  presence  of  their  master  ? 

But,  you  ask,  for  what  purpose  then  were  these  chil- 
dren taken  to  Christ  ?  The  text  shows  us.  "Then  were 
brought  unto  him  little  children  that  he  should  put  his 
hands  on  them  and  pray"  Who  has  the  right  to  infer 
that  these  children  were  baptized?  Or  that  baptism  was 
even  mentioned?  But  Dr.  H.  says,  "such  are  the  members 
of  the  Church.'1  Now  Christ  said  no  such  thing.  He  said, 
"  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 

Dr.  Barnes  puts  it  right  in  his  notes  on  this  passage. 
Says  he :  "  Of  such  as  these,  that  is,  of  persons  of  such  tem- 
pers as  these,  is  the  Church  to  be  composed.  He  does  not 
.say  of  those  infants,  but  of  such  persons  as  resemble  them, 
or  were  like  them  in  temper,  was  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
made  Up :  it  is  proper  then  that  He  should  pray  for  them." 
Dr.  Barnes  is  high  Presbyterian  authority. 

But  let  our  Savior  tell  us  what  he  meant.  In  Matt. 
18-3,  "Except  ye  be  converted  and  become  as  little  chil- 
dren, ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  Here 
is  the  resemblance  between  little  children  and  converted 
persons,  who  alone  are  fit  subjects  for  Church  membership, 
but  not  one  word  about  infant  baptism.  The  beautiful 
lesson  taught  in  the  above  passage  is  destroyed  by  strain- 
ing it  to  teach  infant  baptism.  The  idea  that  Christ  wish- 
ed to  impress  on  parents  was,  that  their  children  should  be 
objects  of  deep  solicitude  and  prayer ;  that  they  should  be 
brought  to  him  by  faith  for  his  blessing,  but  not  for  bap- 


135 


tism,  for  that  he  has  forbidden,  by  commanding;  those  who 
are  to  be  baptized,  first  to  believe.  It  does  not  matter 
whether  the  kingdom  of  heaven  means  the  Church  visible  or 
invisible.  Christ  does  not  say,  as  Dr.  H.,  that  children  are 
members  of  it,  but  that  its  members  are  like  children.  He 
does  not  say  His  Church  is  composed  of  children,  but  of 
such  as  are  like  children. 

Kitto,  that  great  scholar  and  author,  and  a  Pedo-Bap- 
tist  says:  "In  reference  to  infant  baptism  which  it  is  so 
common  to  seek  for  in  these  passages,  there  is  clearly  not 
the  slightest  trace  to  be  found. ?? 

Bishop  Taylor,  another  eminent  Pedo-Baptist  says: 
"To  rely  on  this  text  as  proof  of  infant  baptism,  proves 
nothing  so  much  as  the  want  of  a,  better  argument.'' 

But,  Doctor,  we  are  not  done  with  you  here  yet.  You 
say  that  "baptism  is  an  outward  sign  of  inward  grace ;  that 
is  your  reason  for  baptizing  adults.  For  the  same  reason 
we  baptize  children.  The  moral  state  decides  the  question 
of  baptism,  and  not  ages  or  classes  of  persons."  Now  this 
is  reasoning  upon  the  supposition  that  adults  and  young 
children  are  in  all  respects  alike.  There  are  many  points  of 
difference.  The  adults  are  in  a  state  of  grace ;  infants  are 
in  a  state  of  nature.  Adults  have  been  regenerated  by  the 
spirit  of  God ;  infants  are  yet  in  the  flesh,  and  they  that  are 
in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God.  Adults  have  believed  in 
Christ;  infants  have  never  heard  of  Christ,  and  "how  can 
they  believe  in  him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard  ?  ' ?  While 
it  is  true,  as  Christ  says,  that  those  who  are  like  children 
in  certain  respects  are  prepared  for  admission  to  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  and  that  which  causes  their  fitness  for  ad- 
mission, is  the  very  thing  in  which  they  are  dissimilar  to 
infants  in  a  state  of  nature.  For,  "  Except  a  man  be  born 
again  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God.  " 

Your  idea  that  infants,  in  a  state  of  nature  are  fit  sub- 
jects for  admission  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  is  opposed 
to  your  doctrine  of  "total  depravity.''   If,  as  you  preach. 


136 


all  are  totally  depra  ved,  how  can  infants,  while  in  a  state 
of  total  depravity,  be  fit  subjects  for  admission  into  the 
kingdom?  " That  which  is  born  of  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that 
which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  Spirit." — John  3-36.  "In 
Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth  anything-,  nor 
uncircumcision,  but  a  new  creature.'1 — Gal.  5-15. 

You  contradict  in  your  argument,  both  Christ  and 
Paul,  as  well  as  your  doctrine  of  total  depravity,  when  you 
assert  that  infants  a  re  proper  subjects  for  Church  member- 
ship, taught  in  the  passage,  "Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."  If  that  which  is  born  of  flesh  is  flesh,  and  if  they 
that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God,  then  infants,  while 
in  a  state  of  nature,  cannot  please  God,  and  are  therefore 
not  suitable  subjects  for  His  kingdom*.  When  you  say  that 
all  infants  in  a  state  of  nature,  are  prepared  for  heaven, 
you  contradict  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  But,  if  you  mean 
to  say  that  all  are  changed  into  the  spiritual  state  after 
their  birth,  and  while  infants,  then  you  contradict  not-  on- 
ly  the  Scriptures,  but  universal  experience  and  observation. 
For  we  have  never  seen  any  one  grow  up  holy  and  sinless 
from  infancy.  But  if  you  mean  to  say  that  those  only  Avho 
die  in  infancy  are  "born  of  the  Spirit,"  and  are  saved,  we 
agree  with  you.  If  those  only  who  die  in  infancy  are  re- 
generated, why  do  you  insist  that  all  infants  are  fit  sub- 
jects for  the  ordinance?  How  can  you  tell  at  what  hpur 
the  child  may  die,  and  who  of  the  children  will  die  in  their 
infancy,  and  finding*  this  how  can  you  tell  the  time they  ex- 
perience the  new  birth ?  Whether  before,  or  in  the  "arti- 
cle "  of  death?  According  to  this  theory  dead  infants  only 
would  be  the  proper  ones  for  the  ordinance,  and  like  our 
Methodist  brother  in  Asheville  a  year  or  two  ago,  who  bap- 
tized the  dead  infant,  this  would  be  more  consistent  with 
your  principles  and  less  hurtful  to  the  Avorld,  than  your 
present  practice. 

But,  I  would  ask  my  friend  again,  that  if  all  infants  arc 
eligible  to  Church  membership  and  to  baptism,  why  do  you 


187 


not  baptize  others  besides  the  children  of  your  members? 
There  are  thousands  of  children  around  you,  but  because 
their  parents  are  Avicked,  or  not  among  your  membership, 
you  never  raise  your  voice  in  their  behalf  in  order  to  put 
the  "seal"  on  them  also. 

But  to  conclude  this  part  of  the  reference  toDr.H.'s  ar- 
gument on  infant  membership,  we  ask,  if  infants  in  a  state 
of  nature  are  entitled  to  baptism,  and  in  consequence  to 
Church  membership,  why  are  they  not  also  required  t  o  par- 
take of  the  holy  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper?  The 
Roman  Apostacy,  from  whom  you  receive  this  rite,  more 
consistent  than  you,  did  for  many  centuries  admit  infants 
to  "the  Eucharist.' 7  You  preclude  a  large  number  of  your 
own  Church  members  from  this  solemn  service,  and  then 
call  us  a  set  of  "narrow-hearted  bigots,''  because,  on  an 
entire  different  ground,  you  are  not  invited  to  the  Lord's 
table  with  us. 

TIL  "  The  Apostles  Preached  the  Doctrine  of  Infant 
Church  Membership."   Page  97,  "Armor/' 

Dr.  H.  says:  "Peter  in  his  pentecostal  sermon  declared, 
:  The  promise  is  unto  you  and  your  children.'  The  promise 
referred  to  is  that  which  is  contained  in  the  Abrahamic 
covenant.' "  He  says :  "  Never  was  there  a  better  time  for 
Peter  t  o  declare  the  repeal  of  the  law  requiring  the  children 
to  be  brought  into  the  Church  than  this."  .  .  .  This  pas- 
sage is  considered  one  of  their  strongest  texts  in  support 
of  infant  baptism.  I  think  Ave  can  shf>w  that  the  Apostle 
never  even  thought  of  such  an  absurdity.  As  our  friend 
quotes  only  so  much  of  this  text  as  suits  his  purpose,  let 
us  examine  the  subject  as  it  is.  On  that  memorable  day 
the  people  were  pierced  to  the  heart  at  the  preaching  of  the 
Apostles,  and  said:  "Men  and  brethren  what  shall  we  do?" 
"  Then  Peter  said  unto  them,  repent  and  be  baptized,  ever y 
one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  ye  Shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.    For  the 


188 


promise  is  unto  you  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that 
are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call." 

Now  it  is  clear  as  the  noonday  sun  that  the  persons  to 
be  baptized  were  first  to  repent,  and  cannot  here  possibly 
allude  to  unconscious  babes.  But  you  say  the  promise  is 
to  your  children.  The  term  children  here  evidently  means 
posterity,  not  infants.  Nothing  is  more  common  in  the 
Scriptures  than  to  speak  of  the  Jewish  nation  as  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel.  Peter  says  to  them,  "  Ye  are  the  children  of 
the  prophets."  But  this  promise  was  not  only  to  the  Jews 
and  their  posterity  (children)  but  to  Gentiles,  "to  all  that 
are  afar  off',"  with  this  restriction  on  the  promise,  "even 
as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call."  The  Scripture 
goes  on  further  to  say:  "Then  they  that  gladly  received 
his  word  were  baptized."  Infants  could  not  "receive  the 
word,"  therefore  were  not  baptized.  Those  only  who  re- 
pented were  baptized,  not 'the  "penitents  and  their  chil- 
dren." 

"  The  promise  is  to  you  and  your  children."  What 
promise?  Evidently  the  Holy  Ghost.  "And  ye  shall  re- 
ceive the  Holy  Ghost."  It  was  not  a  promise  of  baptism. 
If  infants  were  to  be  baptized  without  repentance  and  faith 
in  Christ,  then  all  the  aliens  and  idolators  among  the 
Gentiles,  for  they  are  included  in  the  expression  "  all  that 
are  afar  off.  "  There  is  the  same  authority  to  baptize  these 
as  the  children — "you  and  your  children  and  all  that  are 
afar  off'. ' '  Grant  your  position,  then 1 1  all  the  w orld  and  the 
rest  of  mankind  "  are  equally  included  in  the  promise,  while 
Peter  limits  it  to  those  Avho  "  repent  and  believe."  If  this 
text,  then,  is  one  of  the  strongest  proofs  for  infant  baptism, 
the  cause  of  my  friend  is  desperate  indeed .  But  Dr.  H .  next 
refers  us  in  support  of  this  subject  to 

IV.  Family  Baptisms-  Page  98,  "Armor." 
"Proofs."    "And  a  certain  woman  named  Lydia,  a 


139 


seller  of  purple,  of  the  city  of  Thyatira,  which  worshipped 
God,  heard  us :  whose  heart  the  Lord  opened  that  she  at- 
tended unto  the  things  which  were  spoken  of  Paul.  And 
when  she  was  baptized  and  her  household,  she  besought  us, 
saying,  If  ye  have  judged  me  faithful  to  the  Lord,  come  into 
my  house  and  abide  there.  And  she  constrained  us." — 
Acts  16,  14-15.  Dr.  H.  says:  " Notice,  nothing  is  said 
about  her  family  exercising  any  religious  duty,  but  it  is 
said  of  her,  '  The  Lord  opened  her  heart,  and  she  attended 
to  the  things  spoken  by  Paul.'  As  an  adult  person  she  re- 
pented and  believed;  and  as  nothing  is  said  about  her  fam- 
ily repenting  and  believing,  but  that  they  were  baptized, 
the  inference  is  that  her  family  consisted  of  children  too 
young  to  believe  and  that  they  were  baptized  on  the  faith 
of  the  mother." 

So  our  author  sticks  to  "  inference,"  since  he  cannot 
find  a  single  verse  or  sentence  in  the  Scriptures  in  support 
of  his  infant  baptism.  Not  one  word  is  here  said  about 
children  in  Lydia's  household.  Before  he  can  claim  this  as 
Scriptural  authority  for  infant  baptism,  he  must  show  that 
Lydia  Avas  a  mother,  and  that  she  had  children  too  young' 
to  believe,  neither  of  which  he  can  or  ever  will  be  able  to 
prove.  She  may  or  may  not  have  had  children  ;  she  may 
have  had  a  husband ;  she  may  have  been  a  widow ;  she  may 
have  been  an  old  maid  ;  it  is  all  a  matter  of  "inference." 
She  was  in  the  city  of  Phillippi,  some  three  or  four  hundred 
miles  from  her  house,  for  she  lived  in  Thyatira,  away  off  in 
Asia  Minor,  and  if  she  had  a  husbancl  and  little  infants,  it 
would  have  been  natural  for  him  to  leave  her  at  home  with 
the  children  while  he  traveled  abroad  to  sell  his  merchandise. 

The  most  reasonable  inference  is  that  her  household 
consisted  of  persons  in  her  employ;  that  they  believed  and 
were  baptized  as  well  as  Lydia.  One  thing  is  certain 7 
whether  they  were  the  offspring  or  servants  of  Lydia,  they 
were  men,  for  in  verse  40  of  this  chapter  we  read  that  as 
soon  as  Paul  and  Silas  were  liberated  they  returned  to  the 


140 


house  of  Lydia  and  saw  the  brethren  and  comforted  them. 
There  were  no  others  thereat  that  time  whom  the  Apostles 
Avould  call  "brethren"  for  they  were  the  first  converts  at 
that  place  and  composed  the  household  of  Lydia .  To  seize 
upon  this  Scripture  as  a  proof  of  infant  baptism  only  shows 
how  weak  and  untenable  is  their  ground  for  its  support. 
To  say  that  the  term  household  necessarily  includes  in- 
fants, the  reader  is  reminded  that  there  are  in  every  neigh- 
borhood whole  families  in  which  there  are  no  small  children, 
and  whole  families  have  often  been  baptized  and  not  a  sim- 
gle  infant  among  them.  When  there  is  no  mention  of  the 
act  claimed  in  the  Scriptures,  the  burden  of  proof  rests  with 
our  opponents. 

Now  we  come  next  to  consider  "The  Jailer's  Family.'' 
"And  they  said,  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou 
shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  house.  And  they  spake  unto  him 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house. 
>  **A  he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed 
th m  stripes;  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  straight- 
way." Acts XVI-3 1-34.  Dr. H. adds:  "The  term  house- 
hold '  in  the  ordinary  sense  includes  all  the  children  of  the 
family.  When  it  is  said :  '  Joseph  nourished  his  father  and 
his  brethren,  and  all  his  father's  household  with  bread  ac- 
cording to  their  families,' little  children  are  included.  " 
He  says :  "Many  attempts  have  been  made  to  prove  that 
there  Avere  no  children  in  these  families,  but  all  such  at- 
tempts are  vain."  The  probabilities  are  against  all  such 
reasoning.  Besides  these  families,  Paul  baptized  the 
"household  of  Stephanas."  .  .  :  .  He  says:  "Who  can  be- 
lieve that  not  one  infant  Avas  found  in  all  these  families," 
&c.  He  says:  "The  practice* of  infant  baptism  does  not 
rest  on  inference,"  &c. 

This  part  of  Dr.  H.'s  argument  is  weak  indeed.  Any 
one  who  reads  the  account  can  see  that  infants  are  not  al- 
luded to  in  the  jailer's  family.  Paul  and  Silas  "spake  unto 
him  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his 


141 


house.''  Surely  they  would  not  preach  to  infants.  It  is 
said  that  "the  jailer  rejoiced,  believing  in  God,  with  all  his 
house/'  Could  infants  believe  and  rejoice?  It  is  said  of 
Crispus:  "He  believed  on  the  Lord  with  all  his  house/' 
Acts.  18-8.  As  to  the  household  of  Stephanas,  it  is  said 
that  they  "addicted  themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the 
saintSv"  How  could  infants  minister  to  the  saints? 
Now  in  all  these  cases  of  household  baptisms,  they 
are  said  to  believe,  to  rejoice,  to  administer  to  the  wants 
of  the  saints — not  one  word  about  the  parents  bringing 
their  children  to  have  them  baptized.  It  is  clear  then  that 
they  either  had  none,  or  if  they  did  there  were  no  Pedo-Bap- 
tists  at  that  time.  There  is  no  allusion  in  all  these  pas- 
sages to  any  "vows,  promises  and  obligations''  made  and. 
assumed  by  their  parents  or  sponsors  at  their  baptism. 
There  is  scarcely  a  Baptist  minister  of  much  prominence 
and  who  has  advanced  in  life,  who  has  not  baptized  more 
entire  households  than  are  mentioned  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  thus  upsets  our  friend's  assertion  when  he  says : 
"Now,  if  our  modern  preachers  follow  them,  (Apostles) 
they  will  baptize  entire  families,  and  if  they  go  on  in  doing 
so,  it  is  certain  that  they  will  baptize  infants."  .  .  . 

In  conclusion  here,  celebrated  Pedo-Baptist  writers 
shall  speak  for  us.  Neander,  to  whom  we  have  before  al- 
luded, as  being  undoubtedly  the  first  Church  historian  of 
his  age,  speaking  of  these  household  baptisms,  says:  "We 
cannot  infer  the  existence  of  infant  baptism  from  the  ex- 
istence of  the  baptism  of  whole  families,  for  the  passage  in 
1  Cor.  16-15,  shows  the  fallacy  of  such  a  conclusion,  as 
from  that  it  appears  that  the  whole  family  of  Stephanas, 
who  were  baptized  by  Paul,  consisted  of  adults."  (See 
page  101,  102,  Planting  and  Training  of  the  Church.) 

Dr.  Wall,  in  his  "History  of  Infant  Baptism,"  on  the 
very  first  page  of  his  preface  says  that  "among  all  the  per- 
sons that  are  recorded  as  baptized  by  the  Apostles,  there 
is  no  express  mention  of  auy  infant."    We  might  quote 


142 


from  others,  celebrated  in  the  world  of  .scholars,  of  similar 
import,  but  this  is  enough. 

Dr.  H.  says,  in  his  "  Historical  Statement,"  (page  99, 
"  Armor.")  "  From  the  year  400,  A.  D.,  to  1150,  no  soci- 
ety of  men  in  all  the  period  of  750  years  ever  pretended  to 
say  that  it  was  unlawful  to  baptize  infants.  Irenaeus,  who 
lived  in  the  second  century,  declares  expressly  that  the 
Church  learned  from  the  Apostles  to  baptize  children.  So 
far  as  history  affords  any  light,  the  baptism  of  children 
was  practiced  down  to  the  eleventh  century.  About  1130 
a  body  of  Christians  called  Waldenses  entertained  the  idea 
that  infants  were  incapable  of  salvation  and  therefore  re- 
jected infant  baptism.  About  1520  the  Ana-Baptists  re- 
newed this  objection,  which  the  Baptists  took  up  and  stout- 
ly maintain:" 

We  pause  here  to  notice  the  above  astonishing  state- 
ment. 

We  have  followed  him  through  the  Scriptures  and  ask 
the  unprejudiced  reader  if  it  has  not  been  shown  conclusive- 
ly that  there  is  neither  precept  nor  example  for  infant  bap- 
tism, in  all  God's  word?  It  is  nowhere  hinted,  much  less 
stated,  that  infants  are  entitled  to  this  ordinance.  It  is 
nowhere  enjoined  upon  parents  to  see  that  their  infants 
have  this  rite.  The  teachings  of  the  Scriptures  are  neither 
doubtful  nor  contradictory.  Doctors  of  Divinity  may  con- 
tradict each  other  and  themselves,  but  God's  word  is  not 
a  book  of  doubtful  oracles.  It  speaks  plainly.  "Though  a 
fool  he  may  not  err  therein." 

Reader,  when  you  are  told  that  the  Scriptures  teach  in- 
fant baptism,  ask  the  preacher  to  show  it  to  you.  If  it  is 
there  it  can  be  found.  But  he  will  perhaps  tell  you  that  it 
is  inferred  from  the  commission,  "  Go  baptize,"  &c. ;  but 
you  will  tell  him  this  is  only  a  commission  to  baptize  be- 
lievers; it  does  not  say  believers  and  their  children.  "He 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized,"  &c.  Then  he  will  refer  you 
to  Matt.  19,  Jesus  said:    "Suffer  little  children  to  come 


148 


unto  me/'  &e-,  and  you  reply  they  did  not  come  to  be  bap- 
tized, but  to  be  prayed  for.  "And  he  laid  his  hands  on 
them  and  departed."   Not  a  word  about  baptism  here. 

Then  he  will  point  you  to  Peter's  sermon :  "The  prom- 
ise is  to  you  and  your  children. "  But  you  will  tell  him  this 
is  a  promise  of  the  /'  Holy  Ghost,"  not  of  baptism,  and  this 
is  not  to  unconscious  babes;  it  is  limited  to  them  "whom 
the  Lord  our  God  shall  call,"  to  those  who  can  hear  and 
believe.  But  he  will  tell  you  that  whole  families  were  bap- 
tized, and  with  an  air  of  triumph  say  there  must  have  been 
little  babes  in  some  of  them .  But  when  you  turn  and  read, 
you  find  that  all  who  were  baptized  in  these  instances  were 
able  to  hear  a,nd  believe  in  God,  rejoiced  in  God,  spake  with 
tongues,  glorified  God,  ministered  to  the  saints,  and  in 
Lydia's  family  they  are  called  •■■  brethren ;  "  and  when  you 
reflect  for  a  moment  you  call  to  mind  a  number  of  families 
who  have  been  baptized  within  your  own  observation 
which  contain  no  infants  in  them.  And  failing  in  this — 
finding  neither  precept  nor  example  in  the  New  Testament, 
not  even  an  allusion  to  infant  baptism — he  will  tell  you  that 
it  is  certainly  taught  somewhere,  for  unless  it  were,  Wesley, 
Coke  and  Asbury,  and  their  successors,  our  bishops  and 
elders  and  circuit  riders,  all  good  men,  would  not  have 
practiced  it.  He  will  refer  you  to  the  Old  Testament  and 
tell  you  about  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  the  seal  of  cir- 
cumcision, and  that  it  was  applied  to  children ;  and  then 
argue  that  this  covenant  includes  Christians  too  ;  for  Paul 
says,  "  All  that  believe  are  the  children  of  believing  Abra- 
ham," and  if  his  children  by  nature  were  circumcised,  his 
children  by  faith  must  be  baptized.  You  say,  very  true,  his 
children  by  faith  are  to  be  baptized  ,  but  they  are  belieA^ers, 
not  the  infant  offspring  of  believers.  Moreover,  the  chil- 
dren of  the  Jews  were  circumcised  because  God  expressly 
commanded  it  to  be  done,  and  it  was  confined  to  the  male 
children.  But  Christian  parents  were  never  commanded  to 
baptize  their  infants.   Believers  only  are  commanded  to  be 


144 


baptized,  and  this  virtually  excludes  infants  who  are  not 
capable  of  believing.  Not  a  single  infant  was  ever  baptized 
•by  Christ  or  his  Apostles.  Unless  Christ  commanded  it  or 
authorized  it,  it  is  simply  impious  to  impose  it  on  fond 
parents,  and  cause  them  to  sin  against  God,  even  though 
great  and  good  men  have  taught  it  in  opposition  to  the 
Word  of  God. 

If  baptism  sealed  the  conversion  of  children,  if  by  the 
act  itself,  they  Were  regenerated,  as  was  first  taught  by 
Wesley  and  others,  there  would  be  some  excuse  for  this 
course,  but  they  do  not  say  now  that  it  does  have  that  ef- 
|  feet,  for  all  who  observe  know,  that  a  baptized  child  grows 
up  a  sinner  just  as  the  one  who  is  not  baptized.  No  man 
or  woman  believes  that  the  sprinkling  of -a  little  water  on 
a  baby's  face  changes  its  heart,  and  makes  it  a  new  crea- 
ture in  Christ.  We  say  it  is  a  sin,  because  it  brings  into 
the  visible  Church,  unconverted,  unbelieving  sinners,  who 
grow  up  in  the  church  as  such,  and  in  this  way  has  been 
the  cause  of  untold  suffering,  enough  to  make  the  true  fol- 
lowers of  Christ  to  weep  tears  of  blood.  For  the  first  two 
or  three  centuries  there  is  no  mention  of  it  in  the  churches ; 
the  members  were  all  professed  believers  and  were  shining 
lights  in  the  world,  holding  the  ordinances  as  they  received 
them  from  the  Apostles. 

But  when  infants  began  to  be  brought  into  the  Church 
its  spirituality  was  gone.  In  the  course  of  a  few  genera- 
tions, like  the  national  churches  of  Europe  at  the  present 
day,  it  had  swallowed  up  the  world.  No  Pagan,  not  even 
the  tiger-hearted  Nero  himself,  was  so  cruel  in  his  persecu- 
tion of  the  Christians,  as  this  body  of  baptized  infants  be- 
came, when  it  grew  up  to  power  and  influence.  Nothing 
which  the  most  infernal  hatred  could  suggest,  and  the  most 
diabolical  ingenuity  could  invent  was  thought  too  hard  for 
these  baptized  ones  to  inflict  on  those  who  professed  faith 
in  Christ,  and  would  not  conform  to  this  unscriptural  rite 
of  infant  baptism.   This  has  continued  through  every  age .< 


145 


It  has  not  been  confined  to  Roman  Catholics.  Whenever 
and  wherever,  those  who  receive  infant  members,  gain  the 
power,  they  have  become  the  persecutors  of  those  who  de- 
nied its  divine  authority.  They  were  driven  out  to  live  in 
the  caves  and  dens  of  the  earth,  hunted  down  like  wild 
beasts,  and  thousands  were  slain  for  the  testimony  of 
Jesus;  not  by  Pagans;  not  by  infidels;  not  by  the  non- 
professor  and  people  of  the  world ;  but  by  those  made  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  by  this  "  blessed"  ordinance  of  infant 
baptism ! 

Our  Pilgrim  Fathers  of  New  England,  persecuted  the 
Baptists  and  the  Quakers  and  condemned  them  to  banish- 
ment and  death. 

Cranmer  was  officious  in,  bringing  the  Baptists  to  the 
stake. 

Calvin  procured  the  execution  of  one  Servetusfor  his  re- 
ligious opinion. 

Luther  urged  the  princes  to  persecute  those  who  would 
not  conform  to  his  views.  All  these  were  the  advocates  of 
infant  baptism. 

Because  the  Baptists  will  not  fall  down  and  worship 
this  child  of  the  "Harlot  of  Babylon,"  they  are  made  the 
butt  and  ridicule  of  Pedo-Baptists  in  their  sermons  and 
books,  in  their  conversations  at  the  fireside— everywhere — 
and  would,  if  they  had  the  power,  exterminate  them  from, 
the  face  of  the  earth. 

But  Hr.  H.  says:  "Irenaeus,  who  lived  in  the  second 
century,  declares  expressly  that  the  Church  learned  from 
the  Apostles  to  baptize  children."  Now  we  say  Irenaeus 
declared  no  such  thing,  and  defy  our  friend  to  prove  it  .  It 
is  ,said  dying  men  will  catch  at  straws.  The  cause  must  be 
a,  weak  one  indeed  which  requires  such  support.  For  here 
is  what  Irenaeus  wrote,  so  often  alluded  to  by  our  oppo- 
nents in'support  of  infant  baptism :  "  Christ  passed  through 
all  ages  of  man,  that  He  might  save  all  by  Himself;  all, 
I  say,  who  are  by  Him  regenerated  to  God — infants,  and 


14(5 


little  ones,  and  children,  and  youths,  and  persons  advanc- 
ed in  years."  I  have  here  quoted  the  whole  passage  so 
often  resorted  to  by  Pedo-Baptists  for  aid  and  comfort 
since  they  cannot  find  it  in  God's  word. 

Dr.  Doddridge,  a.  learned  Pedo-Baptist,  says  in  refer- 
ence to  it :  "  We  have  only  a  Latin  translation  of  this  work, 
and  some  critics  have  supposed  this  passage  spurious ;  or 
allowing  it  to  be  genuine,  it  will  not  be  granted  that  to  be 
regenerated  signifies  baptized."  (Page  493,  Doddridge's 
Miscellaneous  Works. ) 

Another  learned  writer,  Winer,  says:  "Irenaeus  does 
not  mention  it  (infaut  baptism)  as  has  been  supposed." 
The  term  is  rennscor  in  the  original  and  means  to  regener- 
ate. How  they  can  get  comfort  here  I  can't  see,  unless  re- 
generation and  infant  baptism  are  one  and  the  same.  Be- 
sides, they  would  make  Christ  the  administrator,  while  it 
is  said,  "  Christ  baptized  not  ."  So  we  see  Irenaeus  does  not 
say  one  word  about  baptism. 

But  Dr.  Hudson,  in  his  "  Historical  Statement,''  ad- 
mits there  is  no  trace  of  infant  baptism  prior  to  the  year 
A.  D.  400,  but  from  then  up  to  1150  he  says,  "no  society 
of  men  ever  pretended  to  say  that  it  was  unlawful  to  bap- 
tize infants."  And  on  page  100 he  says :  "  Since  the  Infor- 
mation of  Liither  by  far  the  greater  part  of  Christians  have 
believed  and  practiced  the  baptism  of  infants ;  that  the 
number  of  Christians  in  the  whole  world  is  put  down  by 
Prof.,Schem  as  418,000,000 ;  all  of  those,  except  about  4,- 
000,000  belonging  mainly  to  the  Baptist  Church,  believe 
in  and  practice  infant  baptism." 

Now  let  us  see.  Soon  after  the  Reformation  the  Pedo- 
Baptists  of  Germany  formed  a  project  to  collect  and  em- 
body in  a  permanent  form  the  factis  in  the  history  of  the 
early  Christian  Churches.  A  large  number  of  the  most 
learned  men  in  all  Europe  engaged  in  this  investigation. 
All  the  great  libraries  and  stores  of  knowledge  were  explor- 
ed by  them.   Lutheran  princes  and  wealthy  nobles  joined 


147 

in  the  enterprise.  Neither  money  nor  labor  was  wanting 
to  carry  it  on.  Their  plan  was  to  take  up  each  century  by 
itself.  This  wdrk  was  published  at  Magdeburg,  and  its  au- 
thors are  called  the  "  Magdeburg  Centuriators."  It  was 
executed  with  great  care  and  has  ever  been  regarded  as  a 
most  reliable  record  of  Church,  history.  The  following  lan- 
guage is  found  in  this  history :  "  They  ( the  Apostles )  bap- 
tized only  the  adult  or  aged,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles.  As 
to  the  baptism  of  infants  we  have  no  example.  As  to  the 
manner  of  baptizing,  it  was  by  dipping  or  plunging  into 
the  water.'' 

Thus  they  speak  of  the  first  century,  and  of  the  second 
century  they  say :  "  It  does  not  appear  from  any  approved 
authors  that  there  was  any  change  or  variation' from  the 
former  century  in  regard  to  baptism." 

The  learned  Erasmus,  says  in  his  notes  on  Romans  the 
Gth.  "It  is  nowhere  expressed  in  the  Apostolic  writings 
that  they  baptized  children.'' 

John  Calvin,  the  founder  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
says:  "It  is  nowhere  expressed  by  the  Evangelists  that 
any  one  infant  was  baptized." 

Kitto's  Cyclopaedia  of  Biblical  Literature,  is  a  stand- 
ard work  for  Pedo-Baptists.  A  good  Methodist  friend  of 
mine  has  it.  A  short  time  ago  I  looked  into  it,  and  was 
astonished  to  find  this  honest  statement :  ( Page  287,  vol. 
2 . )    "  Infant  baptism  was  established  neither  by  Christ  nor 

his  Apostles  In  support  of  a  contrary  opinion  the 

advocates  (  of  infant  baptism )  informer  ages,  ( now  hardly 
any)  used  to  appeal  to  Matt.  19,14,  "  Suffer  little  chil- 
dren "  &c. ;  but  their  strongest  argument  in  its  favor  is  the 
regulation  of  baptizing  all  the  members  of  a  household  or 
family;  (I  Cor.  1G,  17,  Acts  8,  8,)  but  in  none  of  these  in- 
stances has  it  been  proved  that  there  were  little  children* 
among  them.  And  even  if  there  were,  there  was  no  neces- 
sity for  excluding  them  from  baptism  in  plain  words,  since 
such  exclusion  was  understood  as  a  matter  of  course." 


148 


This  is  interesting  reading  from  high  authority.  He 
goes  on  to  tell  how  and  why  it  was  introduced  amid  the' 
corruptions  that  crept  into  the  churches.  Turn  to  it  and 
read,  Doctor,  for  I  suppose  you  have  the  work  in  your  li- 
brary. 

Turn  to  the  North  British  Preview,  (August,  1852,)  the 
organ  of  the  Presbyterians  in  Scotland,  and  read :  "Script- 
ure knows  nothing  of  the  baptism  of  infants.  There  is  ab- 
solutely not  a  trace  of  it  to  be  found  in  the  New  Testament. 
 History  confirms  the  inference  drawn  from  the  sa- 
cred volume.  Infant  baptism  cannot  be  traced  higher  than 
the  middle  of  the  second  century,  and  even  then  it  was  not 
universal.  Some,  indeed,  have  argued  that  in  the  silence  of 
Scripture,  it  is  fair  to  presume  that  a  custom  whose  exist- 
ence is  sure  in  the  second  century  must  have  descended 
from  the  Apostles ;  but  the  presumption  is  wholly  the  oth- 
er way."  Such  is  the  language  of  this  eminent  writer,  Rev. 
Dr.  Hanna,  a  son-in-law  of  th'at  noble  Presbyterian  divine, 
Dr.  Chalmers. 

We  have  already  shown  when  infant  baptism  was  first 
introduced  and  the  reasons  which  gave  rise  to  it;  that 
about  the  year  417,  the  Pope  issued  his  decree  against  the 
Ana-Baptists  for  refusing  to  sanction  infant  baptism,  and 
thousands  of  them  were  banished  or  put  to  death.  And 
yet  Dr.  H.  would  have  you  believe  that  there  was  no  oppo- 
sition to  it  up  to  the  eleventh  century  when  the' £  Waldenses 
rejected  it;  that  about  1520  the  Ana-Baptists  renewed  this 
objection,  which  the  Baptists  took  up  and  stoutly  main- 
tain.77  He  surely  reads  history  through  dimmed  glasses. 

If  the  reader  will  have  the  patience  to  follow  us  to  the 
close  of  this  little  volume  we  will  prove  that  the  Baptists, 
tho7  in  ancient  times  called  by  different  names,  have  stood 
up  against  the  world,  the  flesh  and  the  devil,  as  they  do 
now,  for  lo  these  eighteen  hundred  years,  and  solitary  and 
alone  have  handed  down  to  us  in  its  purity  the  Book  of 
Books,  and  alone  have  kept  the  doctrines  of  Christ  and  His 


119 

Apostles  as  they  were  once  delivered  to  the  Saints. 

The  Doctor  now  gives  us  a  few  words  on  f  Objections," 
(P.  100.)  He  says:  "1$  is  asked,  what  is  the  benefit  of 
baptism  to  children?  what  does  the  child  know  about  it?" 
"But  don't  you  see,"  he  says,  "that  these  objections  bear 
just  as  hard  against  circumcision  instituted  by  God  as 
agninst  infant  baptism?  What  was  the  benefit  of  circum- 
cision to  children  only  eight  days  old?  What  did  these  in- 
fants know  about  it?  We  answer,  God  saw  benefit  in  it, 
else  He  would  not  have  commanded  it.  Again,  the  stale 
objection  is :  '  There  is  no  express  command  for  infant  bap- 
tism.' But  there  is  a  command  for  circumcision  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and  baptism  takes  the  place  of  circumcision." 

We  reply,  the  Bible  nowhere  says  that  baptism  has 
taken  the  place  of  circumcision,  nor  can  it  so  be  inferred. 
How  do  they  know  it  to  be  so  ?  The  Apostles  and  primi- 
tive Christians  never  heard  that  it  did,  and  never  practiced 
it.  Peter  knew  nothing  of  it,  otherwise  when  they  of  the 
circumcision  contended  with  him,  (Acts  XI)  lie  would  have 
told  them  that  those  who  had  been  baptized  could  not  be 
considered  uncircumcised  and  unclean,  since  baptism  had 
taken  the  place  of  circumcision.  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and 
the  Apostles  and  Elders,  at  Jerusalem,  knew  nothing  of  its 
substitution  for  circumcision,  or  else  how  natural  it  would 
have  been  for  them  to  have  stated  the  fact,  and  thus  si- 
lenced the  Judaizing  teachers.    ( Acts  15.) 

Again :  it  is  certain  that  baptism  did  not  come  in  the 
room  of  circumcision,  because,  those  who  had  been  circum- 
cised were  also  baptized,  and  some  who  had  been  baptized 
were  also  circumcised.  Christ  and  has  Apostles  had  been 
circumcised  in  their  infancy,  yet  they  Avere  subsequently 
baptized.  How  can  they  reconcile  such  fiction?  But  he 
says  there  is  a.  command  for  circumcision.  That  is  true; 
it  was  to  be  done  when  the  children  were  eight  days  old. 
i  )nly  the  male  children  were  commanded  to  receive  this  rite 
and  all  the  slaves ;  "he  that  is  born  in  thy  house  or  bought 


150 


with  money  of  any  stranger/'  &c.  (Gen.  17.)  The  cere- 
mony Avas  performed  in  their  houses  by  their  parents.  So  if 
baptism  is  a  substitute  for  it,  it  should  be  confined  to 
males,  to  children  when  they  were  eight  days  old,  and  to 
grown  up  and  old  men  who  are  in  the  employ  of  these  re- 
ligious parents,  however  wicked,  for  the  command  also  in- 
cluded them  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  It  must  also  1^e 
performed  by  the  parents  of  the  children  at  home  to  carry 
out  the  similarity ;  it  was  not  commanded  to  be  done  by 
the  priests  and  in  their  Synagogues. 

But  as  to  the  "  benefits"  or  object  of  circumcision,  it  is 
clearly  taught  that  it  was  to  keep  up  the  nationality  of 
the  Jews,  and  was  a  sign  of  the  covenant  made  to  Abra- 
ham (see  verse  8)  that  he  should  possess  the  land  of  Canaan 
for  an  inheritance,  and  on  his  part  the  condition  was  that 
every  man-child  should  be  circumcised.  But  what  in  the 
name  of  common  sense  has  all  this  to  do  with  Christian 
baptism  ?  If  it  had  n  ot  been  introduced  from  the  idea  that 
in  some  way  baptism  was  essential  to  salvation,  we  never 
should  have  heard  of  such  a  thing  as  infant  baptism. 

If  we  were  to  suppose  the  principles  of  Pedo-Baptists 
to  prevail  in  the  world,  where  w^ould  believers'  baptism  be? 
It  would  soon  be  banished  from  the  face  of  the  earth.  There 
would  be  no  gospel  baptism.  One  of  the  institutions  for 
which  our  Saviour  labored,  suffered,  toiled  and  died,  would 
have  no  place  among  Christians.  What  a  horrid  idea! 
For  human  tradition  to  array  itself  in  opposition  to  one 
of  the  ordinances  of  heaven  and  destroy  it,  is  enough  to 
make  the  humble  follower  of  Christ,  and  those  who  love  His 
appearing,  to  wage  an  unceasing  war  against  it!  Just 
think  for  a  moment.  Let  all  the  children  in  the  world  be 
baptized,  and  you  could  no  longer  preach,  "  He  that  believ- 
eth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved;"  "Kepent  and  be  bap- 
tized;" '  'Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word  were  bap- 
tized ; ' ' '  'They  were  baptized,  both  men  and  women. "  There 
would  be  no  men  and  women  to  be  baptized,  for  they  all 


151 


were  baptized  in  their  chilhood.  It  would  not  be  necessary 
to  believe,  repent  and  be  baptized,  for  such  preaching  would 
be  nonsense.  There  would  be  no  distinction  between  the 
Church  and  the  world ;  the  Avhole  world  would  be  Church 
members,  for  it  is  admitted  that  when  children  are  baptiz- 
ed they  are  Church  members.  And  when  Christ  said :  '  \  The 
world  hath  hated  them,  because  they  are  not  of  the  world, 
even  as  I  am  not  of  the  world,"  (Jno.  17-14)  could  no 
longer  be  said,  for  all  the  world  would  belong  to  the  Church. 
And  then  how  would  these  texts  sound :  "  The  world  hath 
not  known  me/'  (verse  25,)  "The  world  by  wisdom  knew 
not  God,"  (I  Cor.  1-21,)  "The  whole  worldliethin  wicked- 
ness?" There  wrould  be  no  world  to  preach  to,  as  every 
body  would  belong  to  the  Church. 

Again,  the  Doctor  says :  "IJut  waiving  this  point,  will 
you  show  an  express  command  for  admitting  w omen  to  the 
communion  table?"  and  acids :  "  There  is  none."  We  must 
notice  this  Female  Communion. 

Another  Pedo-Baptist  writer  says :  "It  is  nowhere  re- 
corded that  the  Apostles  administered  the  ordinance  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  to  women,  yet  no  one  doubts  tha*t  they  did, 
and  no  one  thinks  of  excluding  women  from  this  ordin  ance 
because  of  the  omission  in  the  record." 

It  is  thus  our  opponents  argue  to  establish  infant  bap- 
tism. But  if  they  can  show  as  much  proof  for  it  as  wre  can 
show  for  female  communion,  we  will  surrender.  Let  us  try 
it,  and  see  if  we  can't  shoAv  that  the  Apostles  did  administer 
the  Lord's  Supper  to  females,  and  enjoined  it  on  them  to 
partake  of  it  equally  and  as  expressly  as  it -w as  enjoined  on 
the  males. 

1st  .  Females  were  baptized  and  added  to  the  churches. 
J jjd\ a  was  baptized,  "and  believers  were  the  more  added 
to  the  Church,  multitudes  both  of  men  and  women." — Acts 
14.  "But  when  they  believed  Phillip,  ....  they  were  bap- 
tized, both  men  and  women."— 8-12.  But  it  is  nowhere 
positively  stated  that  infants  were  baptized  and  added  to 


152 


the  Church.  "  These  all  continued  with  one  accord  in  pray- 
er and  supplication,  with  the  women  and  Mary,  the  m other 
of  Jesus."  And  this  you  cannot  say  of  infants.  Paul  en- 
joined it  upon  females  to  partake  of  the  Supper.  He  says : 
"Fori  have  received  of  the  Lord  that  which  I  delivered 
unto  you."  ''  For  we  being  many,  are  one  bread  and  one 
body,  for  we  are  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread.  ''  He  was 
writing  to  the  Corinthian  Church,  which  was  composed  in 
part  of  females  and  the  word  all  included  them.  Again: 
"  And  they  continued  steadfastly  in  the  Apostles'  doctrine 
and  fellowship,  and  in  breaking  of  bread  and  in  prayers." 
1£  And  all  that  believed  were  together  and  had  all  things 
common." — Acts  2,  42-44.  There  is  no  distinction  here  as 
to  sex.  The  passage  as  clearly  includes  females  as  males. 
"  And  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week  when  the  disciples 
came  together  to  break  bread,"  &c. — Acts  20-7.  The  term 
disciples  includes  females,  for  Luke  expressly  calls  them  so. 
"Now,  there  was  at  Joppa  a  certain  disciple  named"  Ta- 
bitha."— Acts  9-36.  Whenever  the  disciples  are  mentioned 
the  reference  is  to  females  as  well  as  to  males.  aBy  this 
shall  all  men  know  that  ye  are  my  disciples  if  ye  have  love 
one  to  another,"  is  said  equally  of  both  sexes. 

And  I  will  here  conclude  this  subject  of  female  commu- 
nion, by  offering  another  proof  which  completely  upsets 
my  friend's  assertion  that  there  is  no  express  command  for 
admitting  women  to  the  communion.  AVe  have  shown  al- 
ready that  there  is  as  much  authority  for  women  as  men 
to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Wherever  reference  is 
made  to  the  duties  exclusive^  of  males  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  term  aneris  invariably  used  in  the  Greek,  which 
means  man  and  man  only.  But  when  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  spoken  of,  the  term  anthropos  is  used,  which  includes 
both  sexes.  For  instance:  " Let  a  man  (anthropos)  ex- 
amine himself  and  so  let  him  eat  of  that  bread  and  drink  of 
that  cup."  The  Greek  lexicons  all  say  that  anthropos 
is  common  gender  and  means  mankind,  the  human  race. 


kc.  The  same  word  is  used  by  Christ  when  he  speaks  of 
himself  as  the  Son  of  Man,  when  lire  know  that  he  Avas  of 
the  seed  of  woman,  the  son  of  Mary.,  but  not  of  Joseph.  If 
you  deny  this,  then  you  cannot  proye  that  woman  is  sayed 
at  all!  There  is  u one  mediator  between  God  and  man," 
(nnthropos)  but  there  is  no  mediator  for  the  •woman. 
"Lord  what  is  man  ( nnthropos)  that  thou  art  mindful  of 
him.  * '  '  1  Man,  (anthropos )  that  is  born  of  woman  is  of  few- 
days,  and  full  of  trouble.  "  And  even  to  this  day,  we  use 
the  term  man  in  the  same  sense,  which  in  a  general  way, 
means  also  woman.  And  to  cap  the  climax,  the  Scrip- 
ture makes  it  too  plain  to  even  discuss  the  matter  further. 
"So  God  created  man  in  his  own  image;  in  the  image  of 
God  created  he  him,  male  and  female  created  he  them." 
And  Paul  settles  it,  (Gal.  8-28.)  " There  is  neither  Jew 
nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free,  there  is  neither 
male  nor  female,  '1  &o. 

In  a  word,  let  a  very  distinguished  Pedo-Baptist  writer 
answer  1113'  friend.  He  sa}Ts :  "I  am  not  going  to  take  the 
ground  which  by  some  Pedo-Baptists  has  been  assumed, 
viz :  that  Ave  haA^e  no  direct  and  explicit  authority  for  the 
admission,  of  Avomen  to  the  Lord's  table;  because  it  has  al- 
ways appeared  to  me  hardly  consistent  Avith  manly  fair- 
ness and  candor,  and  calculated  to  expose  to  a  sneer  rather 
than  recommend  to  acceptance,  the  cause  it  is  meant  to 
s  n  ppor t . ' ' — Dr .  War dl a  w . 

And  lastly  on  this  point — that  there  is  no  command  for 
admitting  women  to  the  communion  table — hear  how  Dr. 
H.  contradicts  himself.  On  page  41  of  his  book,  he  says : 
"Both  the  bread  and  wine  were  originally  administered  by 
our  Lord  to  the  Apostles,  and  both  elements  were  ordered 
to  be  given  to  the  lay  people  until  the  coming  of  Christ. 
The  command  is,  'Drink  all  of  you."  "  Now,  how  will  you 
reconcile  your  own  statements,  Doctor?  You  declare  here 
by  emphasizing  the  Avords,  "  Drink  ail," that  thecommand 
of  our  Savior  embraced  nil  the  members  of  the  Church. 


154 


And  are  not  women  members  as  well  as  men?  And  yet  you 
May  on  page  100  that  there  is  no  command  for  admitting 
them  !    We  leave  you  to  extricate  yourself  the  best  you  can . 

Again  he  says :  ''There  is  no  command  requiring  bap- 
tism as  a  pre-requisite  to  the  communion,  yet  a  certain 
Church 'acts  as  though  there  was.  There  is  not  a  remote 
hint,  much  less  a  command,  in  the  Bible,  authorizing  the 
practice  of  close  communion,  yet  the  very  Church  that  ob- 
.  jects  to  infant  baptism  because  there  is  no  express,  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord,"  rigidly  enforces  the  law  of  close  commun- 
ion without  a  single  hint  of  Bible  authority  for  so  doing.'* 

Armor,"  pages  100,  101.  Here  the  Doctor  closes  his 
argument  on  infant  baptism. 

In  reply  to  this  last  assertion  of  his,  we  are  relieved 
from  a  portion  of  our  task  by  introducing  to  the  reader  two 
of  the  most  fair-minded  and  distinguished  Pedo-Baptist 
writers  of  modern  da/fce,  the  one  a  Methodist  and  the  other 
a  Presbyterian.  What  they  say  shall  be  our  answer..  First, 
the  Rev.  F.  G.  Hibbard,  who  has  no  superior  in  the  M.  E. 
Church,  is  the  author  of  a  book  published  by  the  Methodist 
Book  Concern,  and  is  therefore  endorsed  as  much  higher  au- 
thority by  the  Methodist  Church  than  Dr.  H.  Here  is  what 
he  says :  "  Before  entering  upon  the  argument  before  us  it 
is  but  just  to  remark  that  in  one  principle  the  Baptist  and 
Ped  o-Baptist  Churches  agree.  They  both  agree  in  rejecting 
from  communion  at  the  table  of  the  Lord,  and  in  denying 
the  rights  of  Church  fellowship  to  all  Avho  have  not  been 
baptized.  Valid  baptism  they  consider  as  essential  to  con- 
stitute visible  Church  membership.  This  also  we  hold. 
The  only  question,  then,  that  here  divides  us,  is,  '  What  is 
essential  to  valid  baptism? '  The  Baptists,  in  passing  the 
sweeping  sentence  of  disfranchisement  upon  all  other  Chris- 
tian Churches,  have  only  acted  upon  a  principle  held  in  com- 
mon with  all  other  Christian  Churches,  viz :  that  baptism 
is  essential  to  church  membership.  They  have  denied  our 
baptism,  and  as  unbaptized  persons  we  have  been  excluded 


155 


from  their  table.  That  they  err  greatly  in  their  views  of 
Christian  baptism,  we  of  course,  believe.  But  according  to 
their  views  of  baptism,  thej^  certainly  are  consistent  in  re- 
stricting thus  their  communion. 

•'  We  would  not  be  understood  as  passing  a  judgment  of 
approval  upon  their  course;  but  we  say  their  views  of  bap- 
tism force  them  upon  the  ground  of  strict  communion,  and 
herein  they  act  upon  the  same  principles  as  other  Churches, 
that  is  to  say,  they  admit  only  those  whom  they  deem  bap- 
tized persons  to  the  communion  table.  Of  course,  they 
must  be  their  own  judges  as  to  what  baptism  is.  It  is  evi- 
dent that,  according  to  their  views  of  baptism,  Ave  can  ad- 
mit them  to  our  communion  ;  but  with  their  views  of  bap- 
tism, it  is  equally  evident  they  can  never  reciprocate  the 
courtesy.  And  the  charge  of  close  communion  is  no  more, 
applicable  to  the  Baptists  than  to  us,  inasmuch  as  the 
question  of  Church  fellowship  with  them  is  determined  by 
as  liberal  principles  as  it  is  with  any  other  Protestant 
Church,  so  far,  I  mean,  as  the  presentsubject  is  concerned; 
that  is,  it  is  determined  by  valid  baptism. 

"Now,  this  being  the  case,  does  it  not  become  a  measure 
of  responsible  moment  to  decide  upon  the  question  of  the 
mode  of  baptism?  Indeed,  so  awful  are  the  aspects  of  this 
subject,  that  thousands  have  feared  to  assume  a  decided 
position  in  reference  to  it  .  They  have  held  to  exclusive  im- 
mersion, and  at  the  same  time  have  held  to  Catholic  com- 
mumion,  or  communion  with  persons  who  have  not  been 
immersed,  an  anomaly  and  absurdity  that  presents  a  sin- 
gular contrast  to  the  characteristic  symmetry  of  Christian 
theology." 

I  don't  think  any  Baptist  could  state  it  more  plainly 
and  in  more  elegant  language.  Those  who  hold  to  immer- 
sion as  the  only  mode,  and  yet  practice  open  communion, 
are  well  characterized  as  forming  an  u  anomaly  and  absur- 
dity "  among  Christians.  This  thing  of  close  conmiunion 
as  practiced  by  the  Baptists,  and  so  often  misrepresented 


150 


by  Pedo-Baj)tist  .speakers  to  prejudice  the  minds  of  the 
people  against  them,  will  never  be  surrendered  as  long  as 
there  is  a  class  of  Christians  who  adhere  strictly  to  God's 
word  as  their  guide.  Second.  TTe  submit  the  declaration 
of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Griffin  ,  who  ranks  among  the  highest  Pres- 
byterian authors. 

He  says :  "I  agree  with  the  advocates  for  close  commu- 
nion in  two  points :  1st.  That  baptism  is  the  initiating  or- 
dinance which  introduces  us  into  the  visible  Church;  of 
course,  where  there  is  no  baptism,  there  are  no  visible 
Churches.  2nd.  That  we  ought  not  to  commune  with  those 
who  are  not  baptized,  and  of  course,  are  not  Church  mem- 
bers, even  if  we  regard  them  as  Christians.  Should  a  pious 
Quaker  so  far  depart  from  his  principles  as  to  wish  to  com- 
mune with  me  at  the  Lord's  Table,  while  yet  he  refused  to 
be  baptized,  I  could  not  receive  him ;  because  there  is  such 
a  relationship  established  between  the  two  ordinances  that 
I  have  no  right  to  separate  them,  in  other  words,  I  have  no 
right  to  send  the  sacfed  elements  out  of  the  Church.  The 
only  question  then  is,  whether  those  associations  of  evan- 
gelical Christians  that  call,  themselves  Churches,  and  that 
X)ractice  sprinkling,  are  real  Churches  of  Christ ;  in  other 
words,  whether  sprinkling  is  valid  baptism.  If  nothing  bur 
immersion  is  baptism,  there  is  no  visible  Church  except 
among  the  Baptists." 

These  two  learned  Christian  writers,  though  differing 
with  us  as  to  what  constitutes  gospel  baptism,  fairly  and 
nobly  put  us  right  before  the  world  on  the  subject  of  close 
communion. 

Dr.  Hudson  says:  "There  is  not  a  remote  hint  in  the 
Bible,  authorizing  the  practice  of  close  communion." 

Dr.  Hibbard,  of  much  higher  authority  in  the  Methodist 
Church,  says:  "The  charge  of  close  communion  is  no  more 
applicable  to  the  Baptists  than  to  us.*' 

If  this  be  true,  then,  as  stated  by  these  eminent  writers, 
it  comes  of  an  unchristian  spirit  in  Dr.  Hudson  to  call  us 


a  set  of  "  narrow-hearted  bigots"  for  practicing  and  carry- 
ing out  the  very  same  principle  which  his  Church  does.  In 
conclusion:  while  we  extend  the  hand  of  Christian  fellow- 
ship to  all  our  brethren  of  every  name,  we  reserve  the  same 
right  to  ourselves  claimed  by  them,  viz:  to  be  our  own 
judges  as  to  whom  we  receive  into  our  Church  fellowship. 
AVe  do  not,  as  Dr.  Hudson  asserts,  believe  either  in  "  infant 
damnation  or  in  infant  baptism." 

AVe  not  only  love  our  little  ones  with  the  warm  tender- 
ness which  God  has  implanted  in  our  hearts,  but  we  love 
them  because  our  gracious  Redeemer  loved  them,  took  them 
in  his  arms,  prayed  for  them,  blessed  them  and  died  for 
them.  But  also  because  He  did  not  baptize  them,  appoint 
their  place  in  the  Church,  and  put  them  under  responsibili- 
ties beyond  their  power,  neither  do  we.  We  cannot  see  how 
infant  baptism  brings  a  babe  into  some  new  covenant  re- 
lation to  Christ  which  did  not  before  exist.  If  our  babes 
die  unbaptized,  we  believe  they  are  saved  by  the  grace  of 
Jesus  without  faith,  repentance,  or  any  other  religious  act. 
AVe  cannot  feel  the  consistency  of  baptizing  the  infant  out 
of  the  Church  and  of  leaving  him  there  till,  by  conversion, 
he  is  allowed  to  come  in,  because  his  conversion  has  made 
him  fit  for  heaven  . 

Nor  can  we  allow  him  to  fall  into  the  dangerous  no- 
tion, that  because  he  was  baptized  in  infancy  he  has  in  some 
way  become  the  child  of  a  covenant  with  God,  to  which  he 
was  not  a  party,  %nd  so  be  deluded  by  the  conception  that 
now  lie  is  not  to  be  converted  and  saved  exactly  as  all  mi- 
baptized  children  are.  If  his  baptism  has  engrafted  him 
into  Christ  and  His  Church,  he  must  feel  that  there  is  a 
moral  relation  existing  between  him  and  God,  which  un- 
baptized children  do  n  ot  sustain .  AVe  should  leave  this  mat- 
ter to  the  faith  of  the  child  when  he  can,  of  his  own  choice, 
follow  Him  in  baptism,  a  renewed  and  willing  disciple. 

AA'e  object  to  infant  baptism,  then,  because  it  vitiates 
the  purity  of  Christ's  Church,  as  is  seen  in  all  the  State 


158 


Churches  of  Europe;  that  it  attaches  an  importance  to 
baptism  which  does  not  belong  to  it,  and  so  perverts  the 
design  of  this  gospel  ordinance  by  exalting  it  above  its 
proper  position ;  and  in  that  it  places  the  baptized  child  in 
a  relation  to  which  he  is  a  stranger  in  the  gospel.  It  as- 
sumes that  he  is  neither  fit  for  hea,ven  if  he  dies  unbaptized, 
nor  fit  for  the  full  fellowship  of  the  Church  on  earth  if  he  is 
baptized.  Infant  baptism  among  Protestants  is  on  the 
wane  and  must  go  as  a  thing  of  the  past,  while  we,  as  Bap- 
tists, loyal  to  our  principles,  our  God,  our  country,  and 
our  ancestry,  pray  for  its  speedy  overthrow.  "We  do  not 
forget  that  Baptist  bones  have  lain  for  ages  bleaching  in 
the  Alpine  snows  of  Switzerland  ;  that  Baptist  sobs  still 
haunt  the  coal  holes  of  Bonner  in  which  they  were  thrown 
for  resisting  this  dogma  of  Rome ;  that  the  praises  of  Bap- 
tist martyrs  are  still  echoing  up  and  down  Lollard's  Tower 
to  the  music  of  their  chains ;  and  that  the  pavements  of 
Smithfield  still  cry  out  to  the  fitful  winds  which  flitted 
Baptist  ashes  up  aiid  down  over  the  heads  of  their  bloody 
persecutors. 


159 


CHAPTER  XII. 

The  Rise  and  Progress  of  the  Baptists. 

The  writer  now  enters  upon  this  closing  chapter  with 
deep  and  increasing  interest.  The  genealogy  of  our  an- 
cestors forms  a  pleasant  theme,  especially  when  we  can  read 
of  their  heroic  deeds  and  hair-breadth  escapes  in  times  of 
great  danger.  The  child  delights  to  hear  his  parents  relate 
some  thrilling  story  of  their  grandsires  of  colonial  times, 
and  kindles  with  enthusiasm  as  the  simple  but  touching  in- 
cidents are  related  to  him.  The  Chinese  hold  to  ancestral 
worship  and  can  trace  their  parentage,  it  is  said  ,  back  to  a 
thousand  years,  while  we,  many  of  us,  scarcely  know  who 
our  grandfathers  were. 

Still  there  is  an  increasing  desire  to  learn  something  of 
the  lives  and  times  of  those  who  ha  ve  preceded  us  in  the 
race  of  human  existence.  The  history  of  men  and  nations 
has  employed  the  grandest  talent  of  all  ages  and  of  all  lan- 
guages. Our  libraries  are  filled  with  their  works,  and  ea- 
gerly sought  and  read  by  people  of  both  sexes. 

Now,  while  the  student,  from  youth  to  manhood,  revels 
in  historical  literature  of  this  kind,  it  seems  strange  indeed, 
that  those  who  profess  Christianity  should  be  acquainted 
not  only  with  the  history  of  their  own  country,  but  even 
with  that  of  the  remotest  nations  and  should  at  the  same 
time  seek  to  know  nothing  of  Church  history.  Except  the 
study  of  the  Bible,  the  life  of  Christ,  the  writings  and  acts 
of  the  Apostles,  what  could  be  more  intensely  interesting 
to  the  Christian  than  the  study  of  the  history  of  the 
churches  which  succeeded  those  planted  in  the  days  of  the 


160 


Apostles,  and  which,  have  existed  for  eighteen  hundred 
years,  preserving  pure  the  faith  and  practice  of  their  primi- 
tive fathers,  through  all  the  dark  ages  and  persecutions 
down  to  the  present  time?  Is  it  not  interesting  to  know 
that  the  kingdom  spoken  of  by  Daniel,  that  was  to  stand 
forever,  and  ultimately  to  fill  the  whole  earth,  is  daily  ful- 
filling that  remarkable  prophecy?  Is  not  the  heart  of  the 
true  Christian  made  to  rejoice  in  tracing  back  the  history 
of  the  Church,  when  he  sees  the  declaration  of  the  Savior, 
and  His  promise  to  the  first  Church  organized  still  verified : 
"The  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it?" 

To  learn  that  ever  since  the  rise  of  the  "Mad  of  Sin." 
there  has  been  a  succession  of  "witnesses  for  God,"  "wit- 
nesses for  the  truth,"  who  have  kept  the  ordinances  and 
discipline  which  the  Master  and  inspired  Apostles  committ- 
ed to  their  sacred  keeping. 

Who  can  read,  unmoved,  the  history  of  our  brethren, 
as  they  bore  themselves  as  true  and  faithful  witnesses  for 
the  truth,  when  the  powers  of  darkness  and  the  gates  of 
hell,  ceased  not  in  their  at'tempts  to  prevail  against  them? 
When  "  Apostate  Koine,  for  1300  years  has  employed 
armies  and  crusades,  inquisitions  and  tortures,  prisons, 
famine,  and  the  stake,  to  break  in  pieces  this  kingdom,  and 
exterminate  these  witnesses  from  the  face  of  the  earth? 
Will  you  not  ask  who  have  been  these  suffering  witnesses, 
during  the  past  eighteen  centuries?  In  what  lands  and  by 
what  names  have  they  been  preserved,  nourished  from  the 
face  of  the  serpent,  in  the  mountains  and  caves  of  the  wil- 
derness? "  Will  you  not  seek  to  know  what  were  the  pecu- 
liar doctrines,  which  in  every  age  distinguished  this  body 
of  witnesses,  under  what  form  of  Church  government  did 
they  exist,  how  did  they  observe  the  ordinances  of  God's 
house,  did  they  a  dmit  of  human  traditions,  did  they  recog- 
nize human  legislation  in  the  churches?  Are  not  these 
questions  of  paramount  concern  to  all  Christian  denomi- 
nations, since,  if  not  from  the  New  Testament,  certainly 


161 


from  the  history  of  these,  the  form,  subjects,  ordinances 
and  doctrines  of  the  true  churches  of  Christ  can  be  learned? 

The  studv,  then,  of  the  history  and  lives  and  testimony 
of  those  preceding  us,  who  have  been  "faithful  and  true,'* 
is  certainly  of  great  advantage.  Did  not  Paul  recount  the 
faith  and  sufferings  and  patience  of  the  holy  men  and 
prophets  who  had  lived  before  his  day,  to  animate  the  zeal 
of  his  brethren?  So  we  may  study  with  great  advantage 
the  history  of  holy  men  and  martyrs,  through  whom  the 
Church  of  Christ  and  its  doctrines  and  ordinances  have 
been  transmitted  to  us  in  their  primitive  integrity  and 
purity. 

Who  can  imagine  the  feelings  of  the  Christian  traveller 
visiting  those  Alpine  hills  in  which  the  witnesses  of  Jesus 
hid  and  were  nourished  in  those  fearful  times?  Wandering 
through  those  mountains  and  deep  forests,  he  enters  per- 
il aps,  the  very  caverns  in  which  they  hid  and  which  they 
made  to  echo  with  their  songs  of  praise.  If  a  visit  to  the 
homes  of  the  ancient  patriots  and  philosophers  of  Athens, 
the  rostrums  from  which  they  spake,  the  tombs  in  which 
they  slept,  could  so  influence  the  heart  and  ardor  of  Cicero, 
in  imitation  of  their  virtues,  how  must  a  visit  to  the  vales  of 
Piedmont,  and  the  mountains  of  Wales,  affect  the  heart 
and  mind  of  the  Christian  of  these  times  ?  And  especially 
if  he  be  a  Baptist,  would  his  heart  warm  up  with  sympathy 
and  amazement  while  contemplating  the  lives  and  charac- 
ters of  his  brethren,  who  gave  up  their  lives  in  order  to  pre- 
serve and  transmit,  pure  and  unmixed  with  human  tradi- 
tion, the  principles  which  Baptists  still  maintain ! 

For  more  than  a  century  our  opponents  have  made 
continuous  efforts  to  depreciate  the  claims  of  Baptists  to 
ancient  origin.  Since  they  cannot  claim  an  origin  prior  to 
the  days  of  Luther,  Calvin  and  the  Wesleys,  they  seem  de- 
termined that  no  one  shall  believe  that  the  Baptists  shall 
claim  an  origin  beyond  the  davs  of  Roger  Williams.  But 
we  shall  attempt  briefly  to  show  in  the  following  pages  f hat 


162 


the  Baptists  alone  of  all  den om in ations,  had  their  rise  with 
John,  the  forerunner  of  Christ,  and  have  maintained  in 
continued  succession,  the  principles  and  faith  of  the  Apos- 
tles down  to  the  present  time. 

Mosheim,  that  great  and  learned  historian,  says  in  his 
Vol.  Wj  page  427 :  "The  true  origin  of  that  sect  which  ac- 
quired the  name  of  Ana-Baptists,  by  their  administering 
anew  the  rite  of  baptism  to  those  who  came  over  to  their 
communion,  and  derived  that  of  Menonists  from  that 
famous  man,  is  hid  in  the  remote  depths  of  antiquity:' 
And  Mosheim  was  a  Lutheran. 

Zwingulius,  who  lived  contemporary  with  Luther,  said: 
£Ana-baptism  is  no  novelty,  but  for  300  years  has  caused 
great  disturbance  in  the  Church,  and  has  acquired  such 
strength  that  the  attempt,  in  this  age,  to  contend  with  it. 
appeared  vain  and  futile.'' 

Hear  what  Cardinal  Hosius  says:  "If  the  truth  of  re- 
ligion were  to  be  judged  of  by  the  readiness  and  cheerful- 
ness which  a  man  of  any  sect  shows  in  suffering,  then  the 
,  opinion  and  persuasion  of  no  sect  can  be  truer  and  surer 
than  that  of  the  Ana-Baptists,  since  there  are  none,  for 
these  1200  years  past,  that  have  been  more  generally  pun- 
ished, or  that  have  more  cheerfully  and  steadfastly  under- 
gone, and  even  offered  them  selves  to  the  most  cruel  sorts  of 
punishment,  than  these  people. 

The  author  of  the  above  passage  Avas  the  most  learned 
Catholic  of  his  day,  was  the  President  of  that  celebrated 
Council  of  Trent  in  the  year  1560.  The  reader  will  bear  in 
mind  that  the  name  Ana-Baptist  w as  applied  to  our  ances- 
tors because  they  required  re-baptism  of  all  those  who  left 
the  Catholic  Church  and  asked  admittance  into  theirs,  just 
as  we  do  in  this  day  of  all  who  come  over  to  our  faith  from 
other  denominations. 

While,  then,  the  Protestant  Church  must  date  its  origin* 
from  the  19th  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1529,  that  memorable 
day  on  which  fourteen  cities  of  Germany  protested  against 


163 


a  decree  of  the  Diet  of  Spires,  which  had  met  in  the  March 
preceding;  while  the  Presbyterian  Church  must  date  its 
origin  from  the  autumn  of  1537,  the  year  in  which  John 
Calvin  published  his  Confession  of  Faith  after  his  public  de- 
bate with  Peter  Caroli,  and  constituted  his  first  church  in 
Geneva  ;  whilst  the  Scotch  Presbyterians  must  date  their 
.origin  to  John  Knox,  A.  D.  1558,  and  the  English  Presby- 
terians from  the  year  1572,  when  a  small  church  was  first 
organized  in  Wadsworth,  a  village  near  London ;  while  the 
Seceders  must  date  their  origin  in  1733,  when  Erskine,  Wil- 
son and  Fisher  were  excluded  from  the  regular  Presbyterian 
Church  and  organized  one  of  their  own ;  the  Methodists  from 
John  Wesley  in  the  year  1729;  the  Quakers  from  George 
Fox  in  1625  in  England ;  we  say,  while  all  these  sects  are 
of  recent  origin,  not  one  of  them  yet  400  years  old,  not  one 
of  them  able  to  furnish  a  model  of  their  peculiarities  from 
Scripture,  or  antiquity,  greater  than  we  have  stated,  the 
Baptists  can  trace  their  origin  to  apostolic  times,  and  pro- 
duce unequivocal  testimony  of  their  existence  in  every  cen- 
tury down  to  the  present  time ;  and  the,  model  of  their  pe- 
culiarities is  found  plainly  laid  down  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

The  distinguishing  features  and  principles  of  the  Bap- 
tists may  be  laid  down  as  way-marks  to  guide  us  in  tracing 
their  rise  and  progress  from  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 
era,  and  ma,y  here  be  stated  in  a  few  and  simple  lines : 

1st.  Immersion,  the  only  baptism  taught  in  the  New 
Testament. 

2nd.  Believers  the  only  Scriptural  subjects  of  baptism'. 

3rd.  Baptized  believers  alone  compose  the  Church. 

4th.  Freedom  of  conscience  and  entire  separation  from 
( Jhurch  and  State. 

Now  all  who  believe  and  practice  the  principles  laid 
down  above  are  Baptists  and  all  who  do  not  are  not  Bap- 
tists. In  this  way  we  can  show  that  there  has  been  a  reg- 
ular succession  of  Christian  people  who  have  strictly  ad- 


164 

Iiered  to  these  principles  through  each  succeeding  age-from 
John  the  Baptist  down  to  the  19th  century. 

"But  to  show  what  succession  really  is  we  must  go  to 
the  sources  of  Church  history  and  examine  the  faith  and 
practice  of  those  various  Churches  claiming  to  be  Apostolic. 

For  the  first  one  hundred  years  we  have  chiefly  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  as  recorded  by  St.  Luke,  the  early, 
history  of  the  Church  at  Antioch,  where  the  first  tendency 
to  Judaism  was  manifested.  The  Apostles  and  Church  at 
Jerusalem  had  been  appealed  to  about  the  trouble.  They 
called  a  meeting.  "The  apostles,  and  elders  and  brethren 
send  greeting  unto  the  brethren  which  are  of  the  Gentiles 
in  Antioch  and  Syria,  and  of  Silicia.  For  as  much  as  we 
have  heard  that  certain  which  went  out  from  us  have 
troubled  you  with  words  subverting  your  souls,  saying  you 
must  be  circumcised  and  keep  the  law,  to  whom  we  gave  no 
such  commandment."  Nowt  if  such  was  the  condition  of 
the  Church  at  Antioch  with  Paul  and  Peter  and  Barnabas 
in  its  midst,  what  may  we  expect  after  the  lapse  of  60  years, 
when  Paul  and  Peter  were  long  since  dead?  For  it  was 
about  60  years  after  these  occurrences  alluded  to  in  Acts, 
and  in  Paul's  letter  to  the  Galatians,  that  a  remarkable 
man  whose  name  was  Ignatius  was  pastor  of  the  Church  at 
Antioch  and  is  the  author  of  several  Epistles,  which  have 
been  found  and  translated  into  English. 

In  the  year  107,  Trajan,  Emperor  of  Kome,  while  on 
his  march  against  the  Parthians,  entered  the  city  of  Anti- 
och. He  ordered  Pliny  and  his  other  generals  "not  to  seek 
out  the  Christians,  but  if  information  was  lodged  against 
them  they  must  be  punished."  Ignatius  informed  against 
himself  and  declared  his  faith  before  the  Emperor.  He  was 
sentenced  to  be  carried  to  Kome  and  thrown  to  the  wild 
beasts.  While  on  his  way  he  is  said  to  haA^e  written  letters 
to  the  Ephesians,  to  the  Romans,  Polycarp  and  others 
which  are  now  found  in  our  large  libraries.  The  faith  of 
this  man  was  very  strong,  for  in  his  letter  to  the  Komans, 


165 

lie  says :  "  I  write  to  the  churches  and  I  declare  to  all  that 
willingly  I  die  for  God,  if  it  be  that  you  hinder  me  not. 
Let  me  be  devoured  of  the  beasts,  by  whose  means  I  am  en- 
abled to  obtain  God.  I  am  God's  wheat,  and  by  the  teeth 
of  the  beasts  am  I  ground,  that  I  may  be  found  God's  pure 
bread.  Bather  entreat  kindly  the  beasts  that  they  may  be 
a  grave  for  me,  and  may  leave  nothing  of  my  body.  Then 
I  shall  be  in  truth  a  disciple  of  Jesus  Christ  when  the  world 

seeth  not  even  my  body  May  I  be  rejoiced  of  the 

beasts  prepared  for  me !  and  I  pray  that  they  be  found 
ready  for  me,  and  quickly  devour  me,"  &c.  This  remarka- 
ble letter  is  too  long  to  quote  here.  In  these  letters  Igna- 
tius writes  in  the  same  style  of  the  Apostles.  He  recog- 
nizes the  independence  of  the  Churches— that  each  Church 
had  its  own  pastor  and  managed  its  own  affairs  as  Bap- 
tist Churches  do  now. 

It  was  during  this  period  that  the  Jews  had  a  contest 
with  the  Syrians,  about  Caesarea,,  which  city  stood  on  the 
boundaries  of  both  kingdoms  and  was  claimed  alike  by 
both.  The  dispute  was  referred  to  the  Emperor  Nero,  who 
decided  in  favor  of  Syria ;  the  Jews  flew  to  arms,  butchered 
Romans  and  Syrians,  which  brought  the  combined  armies 
of  Rome  and  Syria  against  them,  and  after  a  siege  of  five 
months,  the  city  and  temple  of  Jerusalem  were  utterly  de- 
stroyed, eleven  hundred  thousand  lives  were  lost,  and 
ninety  thousand  persons  led  into  captivity.  Thus  after 
fifteen  hundred  years  of  existence  the  Jewish  nation  lost  its 
distinction.  ( For  a  vivid  and  fearful  description  of  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  read  Josephus.) 

After  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  capital  the  churches 
enjoyed  peace  for  several  years,  till  about  the  close  of  the 
first  century.  There  is  no  mention  either  in  the  Scriptures 
or  in  the  writ  ings  of  the  early  fathers,  of  any  other  baptism 
but  immersion  during  this  century.  The  first  mention  of 
this  divine  ordinance,  is  found  in  Matthew  the  third  chapter. 
John  was  the  first  to  administer  it.   The  way  of  John's 


166 


administering  it  occasioned  his  being  called  the  Baptist  ; 
or  as  the  Dutch  called  him,  the  Dipper.  The  river  Jordan 
was  the  stream  first  selected  as  a  most  suitable  water  in 
which  to  immerse  those  who  repented  of  their  sins.  John 
had  been  preaching  and  baptizing  about  six  months  when. 
Jesus  presented  himself  a  candidate  for  this  ordinance,  and 
John  led  him  down  into  the  sacred  river  and  immersed  him. 
Such  is  the  language  of  Scripture.  There  is  nothing  more 
certain  than  that  immersion  was  the  only  baptism  known 
up  the  close  of  the  first  century. 

Barnabas,  the  companion  of  Paul,  says:  "  Blessed  are 
they  who  putting  their  trust  in  the  cross,  descend  into  the 
water." 

Hermes,  whom  Paul  salutes  in  the  church  at  Borne,  has 
left  on  record  the  same  idea  of  immersing  the  candidates  in 
water:  "Men  descend  into  water  under  an  obligation  to 
death,  but  ascend  out  of  it  again  to  a  new  life."  The  most 
authentic  historians  declare  immersion  to  have  been  the 
only  mode  during^  the  first  three  centuries. 

Neander  says  it  was  "perfomed  by  immersion/  ' 

Mosheim,  in  his  great  history,  says  it  was  done  "by 
immersing  the  candidate  wholly  in  water." 

Bingham,  one  of  the  best  authorities  who  has  ever 
written  on  the  subject,  and  a  Pedo-Baptist,  says:  "As 
this  dipping  was  the  original  Apostolical  practice  so  it  con- 
tinued the  universal  practice  of  the  church  for  many  ages.  " 

That  fine  critic  and  scholar,  Professor  Stuart,  had  be- 
fore him  a  class  in  college  reading  and  translating  from  the 
Greek  Testament.  When  they  came  to  the  16th  verse  of 
the  16th  chapter  of  Mark,  one  of  the  students  translated, 
"  He  that  believeth  and  is  Sprinkled  shall  be  saved."  The 
professor  replied,  ''Sprinkled  is  not  correct."  The  student 
said  "it  was  the  practice  of  their  denomination."  "That 
is  not  the  question,"  replied  the  professor,  "  You  are  now 
translating  the  Greek  Testament,  and  the  word  means  im- 
merse."  He  was  too  honest  as  a,  scholar  to  degrade  his 


167 


reputation  to  gratify  denominational  custom. 

We  might  multiply  quotations  in  proof  of  immersion's 
being  the  only  mode  of  baptism  in  early  times,  and  in  this 
particular  the  Baptists  of  this  day  are  the  same  in  faith  and 
practice. 

2nd.  Believers  are  the  only  Scriptural  subjects  of  bap- 
tism. 

This  is  one  of  the  cardinal  differences  between  Baptists 
and  other  denominations  ;  for  they  hold  that  believers  only 
should  receive  the  ordinance  and  it  Avas  so  held  by  the  ear- 
ly Christians. 

This  principle  denies  infant  baptism.  The  one  is  an- 
tagonistic to  the  other.  There  is  a  regular  chain  of  wit- 
nesses against  infant  baptism,  from  its  first  introduction 
to  the  present  time. 

Neander,  says :  "  It  cannot  possibly  be  proved  that  in- 
fant baptism  was  practiced  in  the  Apostolic  age." 

Dean  Stanley,  who  is  one  of  England's  greatest  divines, 
and  of  the  very  highest  human  authority,  says:  "In  the 
Apostolic  age,  and  in  the  three  centuries  that  followed,  it 
is  evident,  that  those  who  came  to  baptism,  came  in  full 
age,  of  their  own  deliberate  choice."  He  says:  "For  the 
first  thirteen  centuries,  the  almost  universal  practice  of 
baptism  was  that  of  which  we  read  in  the  New  Testament  , 
and  which  is  the  very  meaning  of  the  word  "baptize;" 
those  who  were  baptized  were  submerged,  plunged  under 
water  of  their  own  choice."  So  we  see,  while  immersion 
was  their  only  mode  in  ancient  times,  it  was  also  confined 
to  those  who  believed,  and  came  of  their  own  accord  for 
this  rite. 

The  third  distinguishing  feature  of  these  Christians  was. 
baptized  believers  alone  composed  the  Church.  The  com- 
mand, "  He  that  belie veth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,*' 
was  the  key  note  in  all  the  churches,  and  we  read  of  no  oth- 
ers who  in  those  days  were  enrolled  as  members.  A  con- 
verted church  membership,  as  held  by  us  now,  withstood 


.  168 

the  corruptions  introduced  by  the  Catholics,  after  the 
death  of  those  distinguished  as  leaders  in  the  second  and 
third  centuries. 

Tertullian  was  a  lawyer  at  Carthage.  He  was  convert- 
ed and  joined  the  church  at  that  city.  This  was  a  little 
over  two  hundred  years  after  Christ.  Religion  became 
popular  and  many  sought  admission  into  the  churches. 
Tertullian  insisted  on  examining  and  re-baptizing  those 
that  could  not  make  it  appear  that  they  had  been  baptized 
by  churches  of  the  same  faith  and  order. 

Origen,  who  as  a,  leader  appears  on  the  stage  of  action 
in  the  year,  A.  D.  230,  Avas  a  native  of  Alexandria,  and 
born  of  Christian  parents.  He  advocated  believers'  bap- 
tism essential  to  Church  membership. 

Justin,  the  martyr,  lived  in  the  second  century  and  ad- 
vocated these  same  gospel  principles.  "As  many  as  are 
persuaded  and  believe  that  those  things  which  are  taught 
by  us  are  true,  and  do  promise  to  live  according  to  them, 
are  directed  first  to  pray,  and  ask  God,  with  fasting,  the 
forgiveness  of  their  sins:  and  we  also  fast  and  pray  with 
them.  Then  we  bring  them  to  some  place  where  there  is 
water,  and  they  are  w  ashed  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  &c. 
After  he  is  baptized  and  becomes  one  of  us,  we  lead  him  to 
the  congregation  of  the  brethren,  when,  with  great  fervency, 
we  pour  out  our  souls  together  in  prayer,  both  for  our- 
selves and  for  the  person  ba  ptizecl  Bread  and  a  cup 

of  wine  are  then  brought,"  &c.  What  a  similarity  here 
shown  to  that  of  Baptist  practice  now !  In  fact,  we  recog- 
nize the  very  same  principles  and  customs  which  have  ever 
distinguished  us. 

So  during  the  first  three  centuries,  Christian  congrega- 
tions all  over  the  East  subsisted  in  separate,  independent 
bodies,  composed  only  of  those  who  believed  and  were  bap- 
tized.  All  this  time  they  were  Baptist  churches. 

Let  us  look  at  the  fourth  century.  This  was  the  time 
of  the  Emperor,  Constantine  the  Great,  so  well  related  in 


169 

history.  We  call  up  a  few  witnesses  of  this  period  whose 
records  ha  ve  outlived  the  ravages  of  time. 

Ephraim  Syrus  says  that  in  his  time  'k  it  was  the  cus- 
tom, when  any  one  was  baptized,  to  declare  that  he  had 
forsaken  the  devil  and  all  his  works,"  &c,  that  uthe  bap- 
tized first  confessed  their  sins,  and  testified  their  faith  be- 
fore many  witnesses/  ' 

Chrysostom,  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  who  lived  at 
this  time,  said :  ''  To  be  baptized  and  plunged  into  water 
and  then  to  emerge,  or  rise  out  of  it  again,  is  a  symbol  of 
our  descent  into  the  grave,  and  of  our  ascent  out  of  it,  and 
therefore  Paul  calls  baptism  a  burial,  when  he  says  we  are 
buried  with  him.'-  We  might  add  many  other  authorities 
of  this  age,  who,  fourteen  hundred  years  ago,  spoke  just 
like  our  Baptist  preachers  dp  now  on  this  subject. 

AVe  are  now  approaching  the  fifth  century,  but  we  must 
go  back  a  little  and  see  how  the  early  Christian  sects  start- 
ed up. 

Just  before  Constantine,  Decius  sat  upon  the  throne, 
and  issued  his  edict  that  all  persons  in  the  empire  should 
conform  to  Pagan  worship.  This  decree  rent  asunder  the 
churches,  many  became  apostate  and  thousands  suffered 
death.  When  peace  was  restored  these  apostates  applied 
for  re-admission  into  the  churches. 

Novatian,  a  Presbyter  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  opposed 
the  re-admission  of  the  apostates,  and  a  contention  arose 
between  him  and  the  pastor,  Cornelius,  who  favored  their 
reception. 

Novatian  separated  from  the  Church,  with  many  oth- 
ers who  took  sides  with  him,  and  became  the  head  of  a 
sect,  which  was  known  by  his  name  for  many  centuries. 
One  No  vat  us,  of  Carthage,  coming  to  Rome,  united  with 
him  and  their  combined  efforts  were  attended  with  great 
success,  and  the  Novatianists  formed  the  first  most  power- 
ful body  of  Christians  who  dissented  from  the  corruptions 
and  human  traditions  which  had  crepf-  into  the  churches. 


170 


They  held  terms  of  admission  with  them  to  be  "  a  virtuous 
believer,  and  if  you  will  accede  to  our  confederacy  against 
Sin,  you  may  be  admitted  among  us  by  baptism,  or  if  any 
Catholic  has  baptized  you  before  we  will  re-baptize  you."— 
Rob's  History.  They  were  at  a  later  period  called  Ana- 
Baptists  and  a  succession  of  them,  we  shall  prove,  has  con- 
tinued to  the  present  day. 

"During  this  period,  says  Lardner,  "the  Navatian 
Churches  were  very  prosperous  and  were  planted  all  over 
the  Roman  Empire."  But  the  rising  power  of  the  Catholic 
interest,  its  union  with  the  sword,  the  ambitious  character 
of  its  officers,  the  greedy  spirit  of  its  Bishops  prompted 
them  to  crush  everything  in  opposition.  They,  consequent- 
ly, robbed  the  Nbvatianists  of  their  Churches,  and  drove 
them  into  obscurity.  These  holy  people  now  retired  from 
public  notice,  and  a  succession  of  them  will  be  found  under 
another  name. 

We  now  turn  our  attention  to  Africa,  for  it  was  about 
this  time  (the  4th  century)  when  the  Novatians  had  spread 
over  Italy  and  other  provinces  that  one  Donatus,  in  Africa, 
rose  by  his  superior  abilities  and  virtue,  and  protested 
against  the  vices  which  distracted  the  churches  in  that  re- 
gion. A  controversy  arose  and  spread  over  all  the  pro- 
vinces, so  that  in  most  cities  there  were  t  wo  bishops,  one  at 
the  head  of  the  Catholic  party  and  the  other  presiding  over 
the  Donatists.  These  dissenters  in  Africa  were  called  Do- 
natists from  the  name  of  their  reformer. 

Says  Gibbon:  "They  admitted  none  to  fellowship  with- 
out a  personal  profession  of  faith;  and  them  they  baptized. 
They  baptized  converts  from  paganism  and  re-baptized  all 
those  persons  who  ca/me  over  to  their  fellowship  from  other 
communities ;  they  were  very  careful  to  remove  from  their 
places  of  worship  everything  that  bore  any  resemblance  to 
worldly  communities.  While  the  Catholics  under  Con- 
stantine  were  ornamenting  their  sanctuaries,  »so  as  to  re- 
semble heathen  temples,  the  Donatists  cleared  the  walls 


171 


and  floors  of  their  houses  of  worship  of  all  vestiges  of  the 
ancient  superstition."  Their  churches  amounted  to  four 
hundred . 

The  Donatists  and  Novatianists  closely  resembled  each 
other  in  doctrine  and  discipline. 

Says  Crispin,  a  French  historian:  " These  two  sects 
held,  1st,  For  purity  of  Church  members,  by  asserting  that 
none  ought  to  be  admitted  into  the  Church,  but  such  as  are 
visibly  true  believers  and  real  saints.  2nd,  For  purity  of 
Church  discipline.  3rd,  For*  the  independency  of  each 
Church,  and  4th,  They  baptized  again  those  whose  first 
baptism  they  had  reason  to  doubt  .  They  were  consequent- 
ly termed  Re-Baptizers  and  Ana-Baptists." 

Osiander  says,  "Our  modern  Ana-Baptists  were  the 
same  as  the  Donatists  of  old." 

Fuller,  the  English  Church  historian,  asserts  that  the 
.  Baptists  in  England  in  his  days  were  the  Donatists  new 
dipped. 

In  the  year  A.  I).,  314,  Constantine  witnessed  the  dis- 
putes between  the  Donatists  and  Catholics.  The  Catholics 
appealed  to  him  for  support.  In  answer  he  appointed 
commissioners  to  hear  both  sides,  but  failing  to  obtain 
satisfaction,  the  emperor  condescended  to  hear  the  parties 
himself,  but  could  not  effect  a  reconciliation.  The  Dona- 
tists said :  "  What  has  the  emperor  to  do  with  the  Church? 
What  have  Christians  to  do  with  kings?  or  wha  t  have  Bish- 
ops to  do  at  court?"  Constantine,  seeing  his  authority 
questioned  by  these  Baptists,  listened  to  his  Bishops  and 
the  advice  of  his  court  and  deprived  the  Donatists  of  their 
churches.  This  so  called  Christian  emperor  went  so  far  as 
to  have  some  of  these  innocent  people  put  to  death,  and  in 
the  decline  of  his  life,  as  a  good  Catholic,  he  issued  his 
edicts  against  all  who  dissented  from  the  Catholic  faith. 
Up  to  this  time  the  Donatists  were  almost  as  numerous  as 
the  Catholics.  Their  influence  must  have  been  very  con- 
siderable, since  the  historian,  Mr.  Jones,  remarks  that 


172 


"there  was  scarcely  a  city  or  town  in  Africa  in  which  there 
was  not  a  Donatist  Church/' 

The  difficulty  of  establishing  infant  baptism,  caused 
Augustine  to  call  a  council  at  Mela,  in  the  year  415,  and 
issue  the  following  manifesto  to  the  dissenters :  "That  it  is 
our  will  that  all  that  affirm  that  young  children  receive 
everlasting  life,  albeit  they  be  not  by  the  sacrament  of 
grace  or  baptism  renewed,  and  that  will  not  that  young 
children,  which  are  newly  brum  from  their  mother's  womb, 
shall  be  baptized  to  the  taking  away  of  original  sin,  that 
they  be  anathematized . ■ '  At  this  council  there  were  ninety- 
two  ministers  presided  over  by  Augustine. 

Another  council  of  divines  was  convened  the  same  year 
at  Carthage  and  passed  this  decree:  "We  will  that  whoever 
denies  that  little  children  by  baptism  are  freed  from  perdi- 
tion and  eternally  saved,  that  they  be  accursed.'''  So  we 
see  that  while  the  sword  and  infant  baptism  have  ever  been- 
companions,  that  it  took  fire,  sword  and  the  dungeon  to 
enforce  its  bloody  edicts.  Believers'  baptism  has  never- 
borrowed  a  foreign  aid  for  its  support ;  it  originated  from 
heaven  ( John  1-32 )  and  has  been  maintained  to  this  day 
among  the  followers  of  the  Lamb  by  the  same  divine  teach- 
ing and  sustaining  power. 

But  to  return  from  this  digression.  We  come  next  to 
the  sixth  century.  Pope  Gregory  is  now  on  his  throne. 
Every  means  was  now  used  to  blot  out  the  Donatists,  who 
still  held  on  to  their  religion,  "  of  whom  the  world  was  not 
worthy. ' '  Marked  out  for  vengeance,  and  realizing  no  hope 
of  safety,  they  disappeared.  Many  of  them  emigrated  to 
Spain  and  Italy  and  hid  among  the  mountains.  From 
their  conduct  in  assembling  in  caves  and  dens  of  moun- 
tains to  worship,  they  obtained  the  name  of  "Montenses,'' 
or  Mountaineers.  In  the  seventh  century  the  Donatists 
dwindled  away  into  obscurity. 

To  contemplate  the  history  of  these  people,  so  correct 
in  morals,  simple  in  worship,  faithful  to  their  Master  in  all 


173 


His  commands,  and  for  four  hundred  years  ''kept  the  faith 
once  delivered  to  the  saints,"  excites  our  admiration  and 
love.  Their  professions  and  views  were  so  allied  to  our  owi  1 , 
creates  a  feeling  of  pleasure  as  we  remember  that  we  are 
their  legitimate  but  unworthy  successors. 

The  Ci  Paulicians  were  a  sect  which  began  its  wonderful . 
career  in  the  year  A.  D.  653.  Its  origin  is  thus  given  by 
the  historians.  In  a  town  in  Armedia  there  resided  an  ob- 
scure person  by  the  name  of  Constantine,  who  afterwards 
gave  himself  the  Scriptural  name  of  Sylvanus.  He  enter- 
tained for  some  days,  at  his  house,  a  prisoner  who  had 
been  released  and  was  returning  home  and  stopped  with 
him.  To  requite  the  hospitality  of  his  host,  he  gave  Con- 
stantine two  manuscripts  which  he  had  brought  out  of 
Syria,  and  these  proved  to  be  the  four  gospels  and  the 
Epistles  of  the  Apostle  Paul .  These  manuscripts  were  highly 
•prized  by  Constantine  and  were  the  means  of  his  conver- 
sion. He  at  once  became  a  teacher  of  the  doctrines  of 
Christ  ,  and  drew  around  him  many  who  from  his  great  zeal 
in  strictly  teaching  and  practicing  the  doctrines  of  St  .  Paul 
obtained  the  name  of  Paulicians.  They  formed  a  creed 
similar  to  the  Donatists  and  Novatians  who  had  just  dis- 
appeared. They  held,  in  their  Churches,  the  sacraments  of 
P>aptis-mand  the  Lord's  Supper  toberestrictrdto  believers. 

They  baptized  and  re-baptized  adults  by  immersion. 

"It  is  evident,"  says  Mosheim,  "that  they  rejected  the 
baptism  of  infants." 

"They  were  Ana-Baptists,  or  rejecters  of  infant  bap- 
tism," says  Dr.  Alix. 

"They  were  orthodox  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity/* 
says  Milner. 

Constantine  became  a  preacher  of  great  power  and  suc- 
cess in  Pontns  and  Cappadocia.  Great  numbers  of  disci- 
ples were  gathered  in  by  him.  The  body  of  Christians  in 
Armenia,  came  over  to  the  Paulicians,  and  embraced  their 
views.   Churches  were  organized  in  Asia  Minor  and  in  the 


174 
9  m 

regions  beyond  the  Alps.  Six  of  their  principal  churches 
took  the  names  of  those  Paul  addressed  his  epistles  to : 
Rome,  Corinth,  Ephesus,  Philippi,  Colosse,  and  Thessaloni- 
ea;  while  the  names  of  Sylvanus'  travelling  companions 
and  fellow-laborers  were  called  Timothy,  Titus,  Barnabas, 
and  so  on,  and  were  distinguished  by  their  Scriptural 
names. 

In  this  great  work  of  preaching  and  evangelizing  pro- 
vinces, Sylvanus  spent  twenty-seven  years  of  his  life  and 
"multitudes  were  happily  converted  to  God.'' 

But  their  success  drew  upon  them  the  most  bitter  per- 
secutions by  those  who  held  different  views.  The  political 
authorities  were  appealed  to,  and  the  Paulicians  were 
capitally  punished,  and  their  books,  wherever  found,  com- 
mitted to  the  flames.  Sylvanus  was  himself  stoned  to 
death,  and  many  of  his  followers  were  massed  together  in 
an  immense  pile,  and,  by  order  of  the  emperor,  burnt  to- 
ashes.  Simeon,  the  executioner,  afterwards  became  a  con- 
vert from  reading  their  books,  and  became  the  successor  of 
Sylvanus,  as  a  preacher,  and  at  last  sealed  his  testimony 
with  his  blood.  A  great  number  of  them  were  transported 
into  Thrace  during  this  century.  From  Thrace  they  passed 
into  Bulgaria  and  Sclavonia.  They  multiplied  in  great 
numbers,  using  the  New  Testament  as  their  only  .rule  of 
faith  and  practice.  A  Paulician  woman  recommended  one 
Sergius  to  read  Paul's  writings,  which  he  did,  and  embracing 
their  views,  for  thirty-four  years  he  devoted  himself  to  the 
ministry.  He  preached  with  such  fervor  and  eloquence,  as 
to  cause  the  clergy  of  the  Catholics  to  declare  him  to  be  the 
forerunner  of  Anti-Christ  .  The  more  they  were  persecuted , 
the  wider  they  spread  and  multiplied. 

The  severest  persecution  they  suffered  was  encouraged 
by  the  Empress  Theodora,  in  the  year  845.  After  confis- 
cating the  property  of  one  hundrad  thousand  of  these  peo- 
ple, as  many  were  put  to  death  by  the  most  cruel  torture. 
But  it  was  impossible  to  exterminate  this  "  cloud  of  wit- 


175 


nesses  for  Jesus."  "From  Italy,"  says  Mosheim,  "the 
Paulicians  sent  colonies  into  almost  all  the  provinces  of 
Europe." 

About  the  middle  of  the  eleventh  century  they  were 
found  throughout  France,  Germany  and  other  countries, 
called  by  different  names.  In  Italy  they  were  called  Pate- 
rini,  in  France  Bulgarians,  but  chiefly  by  the  name  of  Al- 
bigenses,  from  the  town  of  Alby,  in  which  many  of  them 
lived.  We  are  now  recording  events  in  what  is  called  the 
Dark  Age  of  the  world.  A  Catholic  writer  calls  it  the  iron, 
leaden,  and  obscure  age.  He  says,  "Christ  was  then,  as  it 
appears,  in  a  very  deep  sleep.  The  Disciples  were  them- 
selves fast  asleep." 

It  may  be  true  of  the  Catholics;  but  while  this  long 
night  of  silence  and  deep  sleep,  with  awful  darkness,  brood- 
ed over  every  branch  of  that  establishment,  the  Baptists 
were  not  asleep.  It  was  in  the  tenth  century  that  the  Paul- 
icians emigrated  from  Bulgaria  and  spread  themselvres  in 
every  province  in  Europe.  Holding  up  the  lamp  in  this 
Dark  Age  for  others'  guidance,  proved  to  the  nations  sit- 
ting in  darkness  and  death,  that  the  "gates  of  hell  could 
not  prevail  against  the  church  of  Christ."  The  same  prin- 
ciples advocated  by  these  very  ancient  Christians  were  the 
same  maintained  and  practiced  alone  by  the  Baptists  of  the 
present  day. 

•"They  had  no  bishops,"  says  the  historian,  Moshiem7 
••the  candidates  were  prepared  for  baptism  by  instruction. 
They  viewed  baptism  as  having  no  virtue  to  save,  and  af- 
fording no  benefit  to  children.  They  were  agreed  in  regard- 
ing the  Church  of  Rome  as  an  apostate  Church." 

We  have  now  imperfectly  and  briefly  detailed  to  the  end 
of  the  tenth  century,  an  account  of  the  only  religious  body 
of  people,  whom  no  power  on  earth  could  subvert  to  yield 
to  the  corruptions  of  the  times  that  tried  men's  souls. 
What  emotions  of  joy  and  sorrow  are  called  forth  in  the 
study  of  these  Christian  heroes!   Joy,  because  we  have  a 


176 


succession  of  godly  men ;  sorrow,  because  their  labor  of 
love  cost  them  such  immense  suffering ! 

In  1040  the  Paterines  .had  become  very  numerous  and 
Milan  was  their  chief  headquarters. 

Here  they  flourished  at  least  two  hundred  years.  They 
are  described  as  being  "  decent  in  their  deportment,  modest 
in  their  dress  and  discourse,  and  their  morals  irreproacha- 
ble." Their  churches  were  divided  into  sixteen  districts 
such  as  the  Baptists  call  associations.  The  Milan  associa- 
tion numbered  1500  members.  But  'persecutions  drove 
them  from  their  churches  and  homes  about  the  middle  of 
the  eleventh  century  and  scattered  them  in  almost  all  the 
provinces  of  Europe. 

" These  dissenting  Baptists,"  says  Mosheim,  "spread 
like  an  inundation  from  Italy  into  other  countries,  and  sent 
forth  moral  streams  to  prevent  the  world  from  becoming 
stagnant  with  the  pollutions  of  the  Romish  Church."  It 
was  about  this  time,  in  the  year  1137,  that  a  great  Reformer 
arose  In  Italy,  a  most  powerful  opponent  to  the  Catholic 
church,  who  in  fortitude  and  zeal  was  equal  to  Martin  Lu- 
ther, who  succeeded  him  several  hundred  years  later  on, 
and  his  superior  in  learning  and  talents.  This  was  Arnold 
of  Brescia.  By  his  eloquence  and  boldness  he  alarmed  the 
Catholic  officials,  while  he  exposed  their  corruptions,  and 
became  the  champion  of  religious  liberty.  The  people  flock- 
ed to  hear  him,  and  followed  him  as  a  new  light  in  g^eat 
darkness.  But  he  was  condemned  to  perpetual  silence  by 
the  Papal  authorities,  and  he  fled  from  Italy  into  Switzer- 
land and  planted  the  standard  of  Reformation  among 
those  brave  mountaineers.  He  soon  conceived  and  hazard- 
ed the  bold  design  of  visiting  Rome  and  fixing  the  standard 
of  rebellion  in  the  very  heart  of  the  capital.  His  populari- 
ty became  so  great  t  hat  it  caused  the  Pope  ( EugeniusIII ) 
to  leave  the  capital.  The  vices  of  the  clergy  he  exposed, 
and  declared  that  the  bishops  and  the  Pope  himself  must 
renounce  their  temporal  power  or  their  salvation,  quoting. 


177 


says  Gibbon,  the  declaration  of  Christ,  "that  his  kingdom 
was  not  of  this  world."  For  ten  years  his  eloquence  thun- 
dered over  the  Seven  Hills,  while  two  Popes,  either  trem- 
bled in  the  Vatican,  or  wandered  as  exiles  in  tlio  adjacent 
cities. 

While  Arnold's  friends  Avere  numerous,  and  his  influence 
over  the  populace  was  powerful,  the  sword  was  no  weapon 
in  his  articles  of  faith .  The  Pope  placed  himself  at  the  head 
of  his  troops  and  at  length  restored  his  official  dignity  on 
the  throne.  In  the  tyear  1155  this  noble  man  was  seized, 
crucified  and  burned  to  death ;  his  ashes  were  thrown  into 
the  river  that  no  relic  of  his  body  might  be  left  to  his  fol- 
lowers. Still  the  efforts  of  Arnold,  in  behalf  of  civil  and  re- 
ligious liberty,  "were  cherished  in  the  breasts  of  future  re- 
forming spirits,  and  inspired  those  mighty  attempts  in 
Wickliffe,  Huss,  Luther  and  others.  His  memory  was  long 
and  fondly  cherished  by  his  countrymen  and  his  tragical 
end  occasioned  never  ceasing  hostility  to  Catholic  au- 
thority. 

Xow  it  is  a  well  established  fact  in  history  that  Arnold 
and  his  followers  denied  that  baptism  should  be  adminis- 
tered to  infants,  and  this  was  one  of  the  charges  held  against 
them .  They  also  maintained  the  supremacy  of  the  church- 
es and  of  their  being  independent  separate  organizations 
and  in  all  respects  taught  and  practiced  the  same  princi- 
ples that  Baptists  do  now. 

The  thirteenth  century  was  characterized  by  the  Cath- 
olic's hatred  to  these  reformers,  the  Arnoldists  and  Pa- 
terines,  who  had  increased  in  great  numbers.  A  most 
cruel  decree  in  the  reign  of  Frederick  was  issued  against 
them  in  these  terms :  "  We  will  not  suffer  these  wretches  to 
live."  "  Some  were  to  have  their  tongues  pulled  out,  while 
others  were  to  be  committed  to  the  flames." 

Dr.  Wall  says  of  them :  "  They  had  increased  to  a  great 
1 1 )  ultitude. ' '  Their  schools  and  churches  were  supported  by 
contributions  by  churches  of  the  same  faith  in  Bohemia 


178 


and  Poland.  They  owned  the  Scriptures  as  a  rule  of  con- 
duct and  administered  the  ordinance  of  Baptism  to  be- 
lievers by  one  immersion.  They  were  always  found  on  the 
-side  of  religious  liberty. 

There  were  also  reformers  in  France,  at  the  same  time, 
and  even  earlier  than  those  above  described.  Bruno  and 
Berenger,  were  most  prominent  leaders.  It  is  said  that 
Berenger,  by  his  discourses  charmed  the  people  and  vast 
numbers  followed  him .  His  doctrines  and  teachings  spread 
through  Frajrce,  Italy,  Germany  and  other  kingdoms.  The 
Catholic's  were  alarmed  at  their  success. 

The  Bishop  of  Leige,  said  in  his  charge  against  them 
that  "they  maintained  the  host  is  not  the  Lord's  body, 
and  as  far  as  in  them  lies,  overthrow  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants:' 

Their  followers  were  so  numerous,  that  old  historians 
relate  that  France,  Italy,  Germany,  England  and  other 
countries  were  infected  with  their  principles.  The  Beren- 
garians  were  of  the  same  stamp  with  the  Paterines  and 
Albigenses,  as  well  as  the  Waldenses. 

The  historian  Morrell  declares  that  u  at  onetime,  above 
eight  hundred  thousand  persons  professed  the  Berengarian 
faith." 

The  name  of  another  great  reformer  in  France,  was 
Peter  de  Bruys,  who  lived  at  the  same  age  with  Arnold,  of 
Italy,  holding  similar  religious  sentiments.  Their  prin- 
ciples handed  down  to  us  by  historians  are  these :  "The  or- 
dinance of  baptism  must  be  administered  only  to  adults ; 
that  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  real  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  were  not  partaken  by  the  communicants,  but  only 
represented  in  the  way  of  symbol  or  figure  ;  that  baptism 
was  useless  to  children  who  wanted  the  exercise  of  reason.'' 
Peter  de  Bruys,  preached  for  twenty  years  these  glorious 
doctrines,  when  the  Catholics  through  fear  of  this  intrepid 
Reformer,  committed  his  body  to  the  flames  at  St.  Giles,  a 
city  of  France. 


179 

Five  years  after  the  martyrdom  of  Peter  cle  Bruys, 
Henry  of  Toulouse,  one  of  his  disciples,  carried  on  the  refor- 
mation with  wonderful  success.  He  travelled  through 
many  provinces,  preaching  the  pure  word  of  God  Wi  th  great 
zeal  and  eloquence.  Dr.  Wall,  the  Pedo-Baptist  historian, 
calls  Henry  and  Peter  "  two  Anti-Predo-Baptist  ministers. " 
"  The  followers  of  Henry  were  called  Henricians,  and  the 
Albigenses  were  their  successors  in  faith  and  doctrine,'" 
says  Bernard.  In  the  face  of  all  the  opposing  powers,  like 
the  Paulicians,  they  went  forth  in  this  dark  period  of  the 
world,  armed  with  the  precepts  and  promises  of  the  New 
Testament,  with  a  simple  and  humble  reliance  on  the  Spirit 
of  Truth  for  guidance  and  support  .  The  censures  of  men, 
the  bulls  of  Popes,  and  the  decrees  and  anathemas  of  coun- 
cils could  not  force  them  to  yield  the  laws  of  Christ  to  the 
1 '  commandments  of  men /' 

About  this  time  another  witness  for  truth  appeared 
upon  the  stage  in  the  person  of  one  Peter  Waldo,  a  rich 
merchant  of  Lyons.  He  was  engaged  in  translating  the 
four  gospels  into  French  from  Latin.'  He  found  that  the 
religion  and  practice  of  the  Roman  church  were  so  different 
from  the  doctrines  and  practices  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles, 
he  at  once  abandoned  his  vocation  as  merchant,  divided  his 
goods  among  the  poor,  and  joined  these  pious  saints  in  the 
simple  and  true  worship  of  God.  He  maintained  at  his 
own  expense  several  persons,  whom  he  employed  to  ex- 
pound the  translations  of  the  Scriptures  which  he  had  made 
to  the  people.  His  followers,  like  himself,  renounced  all 
worldly  property,  and  the  poor  and  rich  had  all  things  in 
common.  From  this  circumstance,  their  enemies  called 
them  "the  poor  of  Lyons,"  and  from  the  city  in  which 
Waldo  began  his  labors,  they  were  termed  "Lionists;" 
but  from  the  similarity  of  sentiment  they  were  afterwards 
called  Waldenses.  The  Albigenses  whose  religious  views 
had  been  a  considerable  time  established  gave  their  entire 
support  to  Waldo  as  soon  as  he  appeared  in  public. 


180 


Dissenters  were  called  by  various  names,  as  Donatists, 
Paulicians,  Arnoldists,  the  poor  of  Lyons,  or  Lionists,  Pa- 
terines,  Albigenses,  Waldenses,  &c,  &c.  expressive  of  one 
and  the  same  class  of  Christians. 

In  the  year  A.  I).,  1177,  Waldo  was  forced  to  leave 
France  and  fled  into  Germany  with  a  multitude  of  his  fol- 
lowers, carrying  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation.  Lucius 
III  issued  his  decree  against  them,  saying:  "We  declare 
these  sects  to  lie  under  a  perpetual  curse  for  teaching  Bap- 
tism and  the  Lord's  Supper  otherwise  than  the  Church  of 
Rome." 

Their  houses  were  destroyed  and  they  sought  shelter  in 
the  valleys  of  the  Piedmont  taking  with  them  the  newr 
translation  of  the  Bible.  "  Their  doctrines  were  dissemi- 
nated into  Flanders,  Poland,  Spain,  Calabria,  and  even  in- 
to the  dominions  of  the  Grand  Sultan."  Consequently 
Waldo  and  his  followers,  had  in  a  few  years,  drawn  great 
numbers  from  the  corrupt  Church,  and  their  doctrines 
"made  a  great  noise  in  the  world."  The  Pope  sent  his 
Cardinal  and  Bishops  among  them  and  required  them  to 
subscribe  to  his  articles,  one  of  which  reads  thus :  "We  be- 
lieve that  none  are  saved  except  they  are  baptized  ,  and  that 
children  are  saved  by  baptism,"  &c. 

Refusing  to  accept  these  terms,  many  were  burnt  and 
others  banished. 

"Here  is  the  patience  of  the  saints;  here  are  they  that 
keep  the  commandments  of  God  and  the  faith  of  Jesus."— 
Rev.  14-12. 

The  appalling  scenes  that  follow  in  the  next  century 
(the  thirteenth)  make  the  pages  of  history  blush  to  record 
the  acts  of  men  claiming  to  be  Christians.  The  Pope,  In- 
nocent HI,  having  failed  to  put  down  those  heretics, 
instituted  "  The  Army  of  the  Crusaders."  It  is  said  an  ar- 
my of  five  hundred  thousand  men  was  put  in  motion,  des- 
tined to  destroy  these  innocent  Baptists.  The  cruelties  of 
these  crusaders  seem  to  have  no  parallel  in  history.   In  a 


181 

tew  months  two  hundred  thousand  lives  were  sacrificed  up- 
on the  altar  of  religious  freedom.  Large  cities  were  reduc- 
ed to  ashes,  and  thousands  driven  from  their  burning 
homes  to  wander  in  the  woods  and  mountains,  and  perish 
with  hunger. 

Simon  de  Montford,  an  Englishman,  and  Earl  of  Lei- 
cester, was  their  leader  in  the  first  crusade.  His  wife, 
Alice,  raised  a  second  army  the  next  spring,  and  if  possible, 
became  more  cruel.  Some  were  hung  on  gibbets.  One 
hundred  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  Brom,  had  their 
noses  cut  off  and  their  eyes  plucked  out,  and  were  then  sent, 
under  the  guidance  of  a  man  with  one  eye  spared,  to  inform 
the  citizents  of  other  towns  what  fate  awaited  them. 

On  the  22nd  of  July,  A.  D.  1210,  the  crusaders  took, 
possession  of  the  town  of  Minerva.  The  Albigensian  Chris- 
tians were  then  assembled,  the  men  in  one  house  and  the 
women  in  another,  and  there  on  their  knees  awaited  their 
fate.  A  Catholic  priest  preached  to  them  to  repent.  But 
they  with  one  voice  cried :  "We  have  renounced  the  Church 
of  Rome ;  we  will  have  none  of  your  faith ;  your  labor  is  in 
vain,  for  neither  death  nor  life  will  make  us  renounce  the 
opinions  that  we  have  embraced."  An  enormous  pile  of 
dry  wood  was  prepared,  and  the  Abbot  thus  addressed 
these  humble  followers  of  Christ :  '  'Be  converted  to  the  Cath- 
olic faith,  or  ascend  this  pile  ;  "  but  none  of  them  were  sha- 
ken. The  wood  was  set  on  fire,  and  over  150  innocent 
victims  perished  in  the  flames,  commending  their  souls  to 
God.  The  sacrifice  of  human  life  during  this  crusade  can- 
not be  computed.  These  armies  of  the  crusaders  continued 
for  eight  successive  years,  and  the  Albigensian  Church  was 
drowned  in  blood.  No  calculations  can  ascertain  the 
amount  of  wealth  dissipated  or  the  destruction  of  human 
life  which  resulted  from  these  crusades.  The  Albigensian 
Church  was  now  drowned  in  blood. 

"The  slaughter,"  says  Mr.  Jones,  "had  been  so  prodi- 
gious, the  massacres  so  universal,  the  terror  so  profound 


182 


and  of  so  long  duration  that  the  Church  of  Home  appeared 
completely  to  have  attained  their  object."  Says  Gibbon: 
"The  visible  assemblies  of  the  Paulicians  or  Albigenses 
were  extirpated  by  fire  and  sword ;  and  the  bleeding  rem- 
nant escaped  by  flight,  but  the  invincible  spirit  which  they 
had  kindled  still  lived  and  breathed  in  the  Western  world." 

In  the  year  1373  that  celebrated  Keformer,  JohnHuss, 
was  born.  He  was  educated  in  the  University  of  Prague. 
In  1404  he  embraced  the  sentiments  of  the  Waldenses  and 
became  their  leader.  He  was  a  man  of  great  eloquence  and 
power.  He  joined  issue  with  the  Pope  and  for  a  time  led  his 
followers  to  success  in  reform.  But  being  sHamefully  be- 
trayed he  Avas  tried  for  heresy,  convicted  and  burnt.  He 
sustained  his  sentence  with  the  most  heroic  fortitude  and. 
died  praying  for  his  enemies. 

Jerome,  .of  Prague,  of  whom  so  much  has  been  written,' 
was  Huss'  most  intimate  companion.  He  was  a  man  of 
great  learning  and  traveled  throughout  Europe,  where"  he 
was  greatly  admired  for  his  graceful  eloquence,  and  preached 
with  grea/b  effect  against  the  abominations  of  the  times, 
which  caused  him  to  be  arrested  and  brought  before  Con- 
stance on  the  17th  of  April,  1415,  and  sentenced  to  death. 
He  expired  in  the  flames  singing,  '"Sane  animam  in  fiam- 
mi-es,  offero,  Christ  e,  tibi, "— "  This  soul  of  mine,  in  flames  of 
fire,  0,  Christ,  I  offer  Thee."  His  defence  before  the  Pope 
is  described  by  the  Pope's  secretary  in  a  letter  to  a  friend, 
"  as  noble  in  bearing  and  with  great  eloquence  of  language 
which  excited  the  admiration  of  his  enemies."  He  first  be- 
gan with  prayer  to  God,  whose  assistance  he  pathetically 
implored.  He  then  referred  to  profane  history  and  to  un- 
just sentences  given  against  Socrates,  Plato,  Anaxagoras, 
and  others.  He  referred  to  examples  in  the  Scriptures  and 
such  was  the  force  of  his  appeal  that  his  headers  were  great- 
*ly  affected,  and  shook  the  credit  of  the  witnesses.  "  Itwas," 
.says  the  secretary,  "impossible  to  hear  this  pathetic  speak- 
er without  emotion.   In  his  defence  his  voice  was  sweet,  dis- 


188 


tinct  and  full;  his  action  every  way  the  most  proper,  either 
to  express  indignation  or  to  raise  pity,  though  he  made  no 
affected  application  to  the  passions  of  his  audience.  Firm 
and  intrepid  he  stood  before  the  council,  collected  in  him- 
self, and  not  only  contemning,  but  seeming  even  desirous 
of  death." 

Thus  on  the  20th  day  of  May,  A.  D.  1416,  another 
martyr  as  a  witness  for  Jesus,  and  defender  of  the  faith 
cheerfully  met  his  fate  in  a  most  horrible  form,  and  that, 
too,  at  the  hands  of  those  claiming  to  be  Christians,  and 
because  he  taught  and  practiced  the  doctrines  of  the  Ana- 
Baptists,  and  principally  for  denying  infant  baptism.  The 
Baptists  from  the  time  of  their  early  settlement  lived  about 
the  forests  and  mines  of  Germany,  and  accessions  were  mul- 
tiplied from  other  kingdoms  and  by  those  converted  under 
Huss  and  Jerome.  The  proceedings  of  the  Council  of  Con- 
stance and  the  news  of  the  fate  of  these  great  men  flew  like 
lightning  all  over  the  kingdom  and  Bohemia  was  all  in  an 
uproar.  A  conflict  now  commenced  between  the  Hussites 
and  Catholics  and  a  state  of  civil  discord  lasted  twelve 
years,  during  which  time  thousands  of  inn  ocent  people  lost 
their  lives.  The  history  of  the  struggles  for  religious  liber- 
ty continued  by  our  ancestors  against  the  Catholics  with 
varied  success  and  suffering  on  up  to  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, but  we  have  not  time  here  to  detail  to  the  reader  the 
wonderful  energy  and  pluck  manifested  by  them  "to  keep 
the  ordinances  once  delivered  to  the  saints.'' 

Robinson,  in  his  Church  History,  asserts  that  "  Greece 
was  the  parent  of  the  Yaudois,  while  Piedmont  was  the  jail- 
er." While  other  kingdoms  and  provinces  barbarously 
used  all  dissenters,  the  valleys  of  Piedmont  for  ages  afford- 
ed them  an  asylum,  such  as  "kept  the  word  of  my  patience/' 
— Rev.  8-10-  Blessed  here  with  security  and  liberty  and 
tree  from  the  impurities  of  the  harlot,  their  minds  with  no 
human  forms,  their  knees  bowed  to  no  delegated  authori- 
ty, their  devotion  was  guided  by  no  adjusted  Pules;  their 


184 


lips  made  no  professions  but  such  as  were  stimulated  by 
choice,  and  that  choice  was  the  response  of  divine  benevo- 
lence, aided  by  a  glowing  gratitude  to  the  Lamb.  Such 
were  Novatian  and  Novatus,  with  Constantine,  Sylvan  us 
and  Surgius  of  the  preceeding  centuries,  with  their  great 
and  distinguished  brethren,  Arnold,  Waldo,  Berengarius, 
Henry  and  Peter  de  Bruys,  alluded  to  in  these  pages  here- 
tofore. "  They  had  the  Old  an$  New  Testament,'-  sa^Ts  an 
inquisitor,  ''in  the  vulgar  tongue;  and  they  teach  and 
learn  so  well,  that  he  had  seen  and  heard  a  poor  country- 
man repea  t  all  the  book  of  Job,  word  for  word,  by  heart." 
He  says,  "There  was  scarcely  a  man  or  woman  among 
them,  who  was  not  far  better  read  in  the  Bible  than  the 
doctors  of  the  Church.''  A  distinguished  writer  of  the 
fifteenth  century  affirms  that  this  description  of  the  Wal- 
denses  was  a  true  picture  of  the  heretics  of  his  age,  particu- 
larly of  the  Ana-Baptists. 

The  centuriators  of  Magdeburg,  under  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury, recite  from  an  old  manuscript  the  outlines  of  the 
Waldensian  creed,  viz :  "In  articles  of  faith,  the  authority 
of  the  Hol.y  Scriptures  is  the  highest  authority,  and 
tor  that  reason  it  is  the  standard  of  judging,  so  that 
whatever  doth  not  agree  with  the  word  of  God  is  to  be  re- 
jected. The  sacraments  of  the  Church  of  Christ  are  two, 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper."  "  Their  numbers,"  says 
Mosheim,  "became  so  formidable  as  to  menace  the  Papal 
jurisdiction  with  a  fatal  overthrow,  and  were  only  checked 
bv  the  crusading  armies."  Thev  numbered  about  this 
time  eight  hundred  thousand  persons.  For  one  hundred 
and  thirty  years  after  the  destruction  of  their  churches  in 
France,  the  Waldenses  in  these  valleys  had  respite  from 
the  severity  of  a  general  persecution,  all  of  which  time  they 
multiplied  greatly;  "they  took  deep  root,  they  filled  the 
land,  they  covered  the  hills  Avith  their  shadows,  and  sent 
out  their  boughs  unto  the  sea,  and  their  branches  unto  the 
river."  But  still  they  occasionally  suffered  great  outrages 
by  Catholic  hatred. 


185 


It  is  related  that  in  one  of  these  valleys  in  the  month 
of  December,  1400,  when  the  mountains  were  covered  with 
snow,  the  Catholics  attacked  these  peaceable  inhabitants 
without  warning  and  caused  them  to  flee  to  one  of  the 
highest  mountains  of  the  Alps  with  their  wives  and  chil- 
dren; the  unhappy  mothers  carrying  the  cradle  in  one 
hand,  and  with  the  other  leading  such  of  the  offspring  as  were 
able  t  o  walk .  Their  inhum an  invaders  pursued  them  in  their 
flight  until  darkness  obscured  the  objects  of  their  fury. 
Many  were  slain  before  they  reached  the  mountains.  Ov- 
ertaken by  the  darkness  of  the  night,  these  poor  and  per- 
secuted people  wandered  up  and  down  the  mountains  cov- 
ered with  snow,  destitute  of  shelter,  benumbed  with  cold ; 
some  fell  asleep  and  became  an  easy  prey  to  the  severity  of 
the  climate,  and  when  night  liad  passed  away  there  Avere 
found  in  their  cradles,  or  lying  upon  the  snow  hundreds 
of  their  infants  deprived  of  life ;  many  of  their  mothers 
were  dead  by  their  side  and  others  on  the  point  of  expiring. 
80  revolting  and  inhuman  a  scene  was  the  subject  of  reci- 
tal for  a  century  afterwards  by  the  descendants  of  these 
true  Christian  people. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century,  things  were 
more  quiet.  A  monk  was  deputed  to  hold  a  conference  with 
the  Waldenses,  to  convince  them  of  their  errors,  but  the 
monk  returned  in  confusion,  saying  that  in  his  whole  life  he 
had  never  known  so  much  of  the  Scriptures  as  he  had 
learned  while  conversing  with  the  heretics.  Others  visited 
them  and  returned  with  similar  convictions. 

Louis  XII,  king  of  France,  deputed  two  of  his  noble- 
men, in  the  year  1498,  to  investigate  and  report  on  accu- 
sations brought  against  these  people.  On  their  return  to 
court,  they  said,  ''  Their  places  of  worship  were  free  from 
those  ornaments  found  in  Catholic  churches.  We  discover- 
ed no  crimes,  they  keep  the  Sabbath  day,  observe  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism  according  to  the  primitive  Church,  (  not 
as  the  Catholic  Church,)  instruct  their  children  in  the  ar- 


18G 


tides  of  Christian  faith  and  the  commandments  of  God.'* 
"So  effectual  was  their  mode  of  instruction  that  many  of 
them  could  retain  in  their  memories  most  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament." 

What  a  lesson  is  here  taught  us  of  the  ninteenth  cen- 
tury, and  it  makes  us  blush  for  shame  when  we  see  how  we 
fall  below  the  zeal  and  piety  of  these  Christians  of  four 
hundred  years  ago ! 

But  we  have  now  arrived,  in  these  brief  and  desultory 
sketches,  at  that  period  when  the  great  Keformer  Martin 
Luther,  appears  on  the  scene  of  action.  He  comes  art  an 
age  when  the  whole  religious  world  is  more  quiet.  The 
Pope  is  on  his  throne  and  wields  the  power  over  Church 
and  State.  The  heretics,  our  Waldensian  brethren,  and 
Ana-Baptists  have  been  put  to  flight  and  are  nbw  found 
scattered  over  Italy,  France,  Germany,  Switzerland  and  in 
fact  nearly  all  Europe,  but  through  fear  of  persecution, 
concealed  their  faith  as  best  they  could.  It  was  a  source 
of  infinite  satisfaction  to  them  when  they  learned  that  Lu- 
ther and  his  adherents,  by /their  boldness  and  daring,  had 
set  the  Catholic  Church  at  defiance ;  and  in  the  year  152G 
they  deputed  some  of  their  brethren  to  visit  and  inquire  in- 
to the  truth.  "It  was  found,"  says  Mezeray,  "that  the 
Waldenses  in  their  conferences  with  Luther,  were  not  in 
unison  with  him  on  the  ordinances,  but  sufficient  in  faith 
to  unite  with  him  in  opposition  to  their  old  enemy."  Cal- 
vin, who  began  in  1534  to  preach  the  reforming  doctrines, 
was  found  in  his  views  more  in  accordance  with  the  senti- 
ments of  the  Ana-Baptists  than  Luther,  consequently  they 
were  more  disposed  to  encourage  Calvin. 

Notwithstanding  the  consternation  thrown  into  the  ranks 
of  the  Pope  by  Luther,  aided  by  Calvin,  these  long  perse- 
cuted people  still  to  a  great  extent  maintained  their  ancient 
faith,  and  finally  drew  upon  them  the  wrath  of  these  two 
great  religious  reformers.  In  order  to  illustrate  how  well 
these  people  instructed  their  children  in  the  Scriptures,  the 


187 


historian  McBie,  tells  us  that  "a  monk,  preaching  one  day 
in  the  town  of  Imola,  told  the  people  that  it  behooved 
them  to  purchase  heaven  by  the  merit  of  their  good  works. 
A  boy  who  was  present,  exclaimed,  'That's  blasphemy,  for 
the  Bible  tells  us  that  Christ  purchased  heaven  by  his  suf- 
ferings and  death, 'and  bestows  it  on  us  freely  by  his  mer- 
cy.' A  dispute  now  arose  between  the  preacher  and  the 
boy.  Provoked  at  the  pertinent  replies  of  his  juvenile  op- 
ponent and  at  the  favorable  reception  which  the  audience 
gave  him,  '  Get  you  gone,  you  young  rascal,' exclaimed  the 
monk;  'you  are  just  come  from  the  cradle  and  will  you 
take  it  upon  you  to  judge  of  sacred  things  which  the  most 
learned  cannot  explain?'  'Did  you  never  read  these 
words,'  'out  of  [the  mouths  of  babes  and  sucklings  God 
perfects  praise?5  rejoined  the  youth,  upon  which  the 
preacher  left  the  pulpit  in  wrathful  confusion,  breathing- 
out  threatenings  against  the  poor  boy,  and  had  him  thrown 
into  prison." 

Bishop  Bossuet,  says:  "You  call  Claude  of  Turin  one 
of  your  apostolical  Church;  you  adopt  Henry  and  Peter 
de  Bruys,  yet  these,  every  one  knows,  were  Ana-Baptists/*" 
They  Avere  called  by  various  names  in  different  ages,  but  all 
agreed  jji  oue  article  of  discipline— they  re-baptized  all  such 
as  came  into  their  communion  from  the  Catholic  Church,, 
hence  were  called  Ana-Baptists." 

In  1665  the  Waldenses  were  called  to  endure  sufferings 
of  the  most  serious  character,  which  awakened  all  the  Prot- 
estant princes  of  Europe ;  and  Oliver  Cromwell,  on  hear- 
ing of  their  persecution,  rose  like  a  lion  from  his  lair,  and 
deputed  Sir  Samuel  Moreland  to  intercede  with  their  op- 
pressors and  relieve  their  distresses. 

In  1685,  October  8th,  the  edict  of  Nantz  was  repealed^ 
by  which  act  no  toleration  could  be  allowed  to  dissenters 
from  Catholic  faith.  Fifteen  days  were  allowed  them  to 
leave  the  kingdom  ;  two  millions  of  persons  were  condemn- 
ed by  this  instrument  and  banished  from  their  native  soil, 


188 


These  were  the  glorious  days  of  Baptists  in  France ; 
these  were  her  proudest  triumphs ;  she  could  then  boast  of 
valor  of  which  the  world  was  not  worthy;  her  martyrs 
then  bore  testimony  t  o  their  faith  at  the  fatal  tree,  or  were 
chained  to  the  oar  of  the  galleys  for  life;  .and  women shrank 
not  from  perpetual  prison  in  the  gloomy  tower  that  over- 
hung the  Mediterranean. 

Jacob  Merning,  in  his  history  of  these  times,  states  that 
he  had  in  his  possession,  "a  confession  of  faith  of  the  Bap- 
tists, called  Waldenses,  written  in  the  German  tongue; 
which  declared  the  absence  of  infant  baptism,  and  that  their 
forefathers  practiced  no  such  thing,  and  they  were  spread 
through  Poland ,  Lombardy ,  Germany  and  Holland .  Amid 
all  the  sectaries  of  religion  and  teachers  of  the  gospel  in 
Germany  at  this  time  the  Baptists  best  understood  the 
doctrine  of  religious  liberty,  and  under  whatever  govern- 
ment they  wrere  always  found  on  the  side  of  liberty." 

From  these  and  following  historical  facts  it  will  be  seen 
"'that  the  Baptists  has  been  the  only  community  of  Chris- 
tians which  has  stood  since  the  Apostles,  and  which  has 
preserved  pure  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel  through  all  ages . 7 ' 
The  threatening  aspect  of  affairs  in  Germany  suggested  the 
necessity  of  emigrating,  and  Mosheim  asserts  "that  the 
German  Baptists  passed  in  shoals  into  Holland  and  the 
Netherlands,  and  in  the  course  of  time  amalgamated  with 
the  Dutch  Baptists." 

Says  the  same  writer:  "The  drooping  spirits  of  this 
people,  Avho  had  been  dispersed  through  many  countries 
and  persecuted  every  where  with  the  greatest  severity,  were 
revived  wThen  they  heard  that  Luther  had  attempted  the 
Beformation."  Seeing  the  attempts  of  Luther  they  hoped 
the  happy  period  was  arrived  in  Avhich  the  restoration  of 
Borne  to  purity  was  to  be  accomplished,  under  the  divine 
protection,  by  the  labors  and  counsels  of  pious  and  emi- 
nent men.  Luther  had  boldly  stepped  forward  and  set  tyr- 
anny at  defiance.   To  further  the  great  work,  he  publish- 


189 


ed  the  New  Testatment  in  German,  wrote  letters  to  the 
sovereigns  of  Europe,  broke  with  the  Pope,  and  pushed 
forward  the  work  of  the  Reformation.  The  Pope  denounc- 
ed Luther,  and  he  nobly,  on  December  10th,  1520,  had  a 
pile  of  wood  erected  without  the  walls  of  Wittenburgh,  and 
there  in  the  presence  of  a  large  multitude  of  people  of  all 
ranks,  committed  to  the  names,  both  the  bull  that  had 
been  published  against  him,  and  the  canons  relating  to  the 
Pope's  jurisdiction.  The  boldness  of  this  and  other  acts 
caused  Luther  to  be  called  to  Worms,  by  Charles  Y, 
•  where  he  nobly  and  boldly  pleaded  his  cause.  While  shut 
up  in  the  castle  at  Wurtenberg  he  translated  the  whole 
<  )f  the  New  Testament,  using  this  language  in  Matthew 
the  3rd  chapter  and  1st  verse :  "  In  those  da}'s  came  John 
the  dipper"  So  that  Luther  is  charged  by  the  Catholics 
with  being  the  author  of  the  German  dippers.  At  this 
period  the  reformers  t  ook  the  Scriptures  as  their  only  guide 
in  faith  and  practice.  Luther  declares  that  "it  could  not 
be  proved  by  the  Scriptures  that  infant  baptism  was  insti- 
tuted by  Christ,  or  began  by  the  first  Christians  after  the 
Apostles.*'  What  a,  pity  he  did  not  adhere  to  these  truths ! 
For,  as  we  will  see,  he  afterwards  abandoned  his  true  and 
noble  standpoint,  and  became  a  cruel  persecutor  of  his 
Baptist  supporters.  He  was  such  an  admirer  of  Muncer, 
That  learned  and  pious  Baptist  minister,  as  to  call  him 
his  Absalom.  But  he  could  not  bear  the  idea  of  others 
leading  in  the  Reformation.  When  he  heard  of  the  popu- 
larity of  his  old  friends,  Carolstadt,  and  Muncer,  of  their 
winning  the  hearts  of  the  j)eople,  and  re-baptizing  many 
who  came  over  to  them,  he,  in  March  1522,  broke  his  con- 
finement at  the  hazard  of  his  life,  and  flew  back  to  Witten- 
berg, when  he  disowned  them  as  fellow-laborers,  and 
would  only  receive  Melancthon.  "The  success  of  the  Bap- 
tists now  exasperated  him  to  the  last  degree;  and  he  be- 
came their  enemy,  notwithstanding  all  he  had  said  in 
favor  of  dipping,  and  persecuted  them  under  the  name  of 


190 

re-dippers,  re-baptizers,  or  Aim-Baptists.  He  fell  out  with 
Carolstadt,  he  disliked  Calvin  and  found  fault  with  Zwin- 
g'lius.  He  was  angry  beyond  meaure  with  Muncer  and  the 
Baptists.  The  violence  of  Luther  sunk  his  cause  into  that 
of  party.  He  would  not  have  a  competitor.  Of  all  the 
teachers  of  religion  in  Germany  at  this  time,  the  Baptists 
best  understood  the  doctrine  of  civil  and  religious  liberty: 
to  them,  therefore,  the  oppressed  looked  for  counsel.  The 
tyranny  of  the  Catholics  and  Lutherans  excited  them  with 
great  fear.  * 

Thomas  Muncer  had  been  a  Roman  priest,  but  became 
a  disciple  of  Luther  and  a  favorite  with  the  people.  He 
was  so  much  loved  by  Luther  as  to  call  him  his  Absalom, 
as  before  stated,  and  the  people  called  him  Luther's  curate. 
When  he  saw  with  astonishment  and  pain  the  tyranny  of 
his  leader  he  remonstrated  with  him,  and  caused  Luther 
to  banish  him,  He  now  travelled  into  various  parts, 
preaching  soul  liberty  to  the  people.  He  exposed  the  er- 
rors of  Catholicism,  opposed  the  extreme  measures  of  Lu- 
ther, and  declared  that  a  Christian  church  ought  to  consist 
of  pious  individuals,  who  professed  faith  in  Christ  and  not 
as  Luther  taught,  "to  include  whole  parishes.''  Upon 
these  principles  he  formed  a  church  at  the  town  of  Mul- 
hausen,  where  multitudes  came  to  be  instructed  and  com- 
forted by  him  about  the  year  1523. 

Voltaire,  that  great  infidel  and  learned  man  of  France, 
said  of  Luther  and  Muncer:  "Luther  had  been  successful 
in  stirring  up  the  princes,  nobles  and  magistrates  of  Ger- 
many against  the  Popje  and  Bishops ;  Muncer  stirred  up 
the  peasants  against  them.''  He  said  that  " Muncer  laid 
open  that  dangerous  truth,  which  is  implanted  in  every 
breast,  that  all  men  are  born  equal,"  saying,  "that  if  the 
Popes  had  not  treated  the  princes  like  their  subjects,  the 
princes  had  not  treated  the  common  people  like  beasts.'' 
What  Luther  had  censured  about  the  Pope's  usurpation, 
he  now  practiced  himself  towards  these  good  men. 


191 


He  wrote  to  the  magistrates  of  Mulhausen,  on  hearing 
of  Muncer's  success,  and  advised  them  to  require  of  him  to 
give  an  account  of  his  call  to  the  ministry,  and  if  he  could 
not  prove  that  he  acted  under  human  authority,  then  to 
insist  on  his  proving  his  call  from  God  by  working  a  mir- 
acle ! 

The  people  resented  this  insult  by  expelling  from  the 
city  Luther's  monkish  allies,  and  elected  Muncer  as  one  of 
their  Senators. 

Luther  and  his  colleagues  had  now to dispute t^eir  way 
with  hosts  of  Baptists  all  over  Germany,  Saxony,  Switzer- 
land and  other  countries  for  several  years.  At  Zurich  the 
Senate  warned  the  people  to  desist  from  re-baptizing,  but 
all  their  warnings  were  in  vain.  Recourse  to  the  sword  was 
resorted  to  to  check  the  increase  of  the  Baptists.  An  edict 
against  Ana-baptism  was  published  in  1522,  in  which  there 
was  a  penalty  of  a  silver  mark  set  upon  all  such  as  should 
suffer  themselves  re-baptized,  or  should  withhold  baptism 
from  their  children.  Not  succeeding  iii  this,  severer  meas- 
ures were  decreed  against  them,  and  many  Baptists  were 
drowned  and  burnt.  Such  were  some  of  the  acts  of  this 
grea-t  Reformer. 

The  Emperor,  Frederic,  the  friend  of  Luther,  was  ap- 
pealed to  to  put  down  these  heretics,  so  alarming  had  they 
become  in  number,  which  caused  them  to  assemble  in  dif- 
ferent provinces  to  the  number  of  three  hundred  thousand 
men,  to  provide  means  of  redress.  The  doctrine  of  liberty 
so  strongly  advocated  by  the  Baptists  naturally  attracted 
their  minds  towards  Muncer,  their  leader,  who  drew  up  a 
memorial  expressive  of  their  grievances,  and  which  was 
presented  to  their  Lords,  and  dispersed  all  over  Germany. 
It  consists  of  twelve  articles,  on  civil  and  religious  liberty. 
It  is  said  to  be  a  master  production  of  the  kind,  and  Vol- 
taire says :  "  A  Lycurgus  would  have  signed  it."  A  similar 
spirit  prevailed  among  the  Baptists  of  Virginia  and  the 
other  colonies,  prior  to  the  Revolution,  and  their  principles 


192 


suggested  to  Thomas  Jefferson  the  basis  of  our  national 
Constitution . 

But  to  continue.  These  oppressed  men  were  conse- 
quently met  by  their  lords  with  a  sword,  instead  of  redress. 
Thousands  were  slaughtered  and  the  great  and  goodMnn- 
cer  was  put  to  death.  Had  Muncer  been  successful  in  pro- 
curing liberty  for  the  German  peasants,  ten  thousand 
tongues  would  have  celebrated  his  praise  in  different  ages, 
'the  very  historians  who  censure  him  would  have  vied  to 
crown  his  memory  with  unfading  hon  ors.  All  this  occurred 
ten  years  before  the  miserable  affair  of  Minister,  of  which 
the  x\na-Baptists  have  been  so  much  accused  in  history. 

We  trust  we  have  not  wearied  the  reader  with  these  sad 
details  of  truthful  history,  and  to  go  a  little  further ;  it  is 
just  to  state  here  how  the  Minister  affair  was  brought 
about,  in  defence  of  the  Ana-Baptists  who  have  had  the 
blame  to  bear. 

The  city  of  Minister  is  in  Westphalia,  where  the  tumult 
aiuj  disorder  occurred  in  1532.  A  Peclo-Baptist  minister 
of  the  Lutheran  persuasion,  by  the  name  of  Batman,  as- 
sisted by  other  ministers  of  the  Reformation,  began  the 
disturbance  in  opposing  the  Papists.  It  was  about  the 
Protestant  religion,  and  the  fight  had  begun  before  any 
Ana-Baptist  came.  The  fanatics  held  the  city  and  kept  it 
in  a  most  disorderly  manner,  until  in  1535,  the  Bishop  of 
Minister,  assisted  by  the  princes,  besieged  the  city  and  the 
fanatics  were  taken  and  put  to  death  in  the  most  terrible 
and  ignominious  manner.  This  disorderly  and  outrageous 
conduct  of  a  handful  of  Ana-Baptists,  with  others,  drew 
upon  their  whole  body  a  stigma  and  reproach  of  which,  as 
a  body,  they  are  innocent.  We  mention  this  by  way  of 
defence  of  the  underserved  calumny  brought  against  these 
long  persecuted  people,  who  were  not  at  all  the  authors  or 
instigators  of  the  Minister  rebellion. 

Because  Ana-Baptists  were  involved  with  the  fanatics 
at  Minister,  in  their  zeal  for  liberty,  Pedo-Baptists  dwell  on 


193 


the  plenitude  of  the  sin,  to  divert  the  mind  from  the  ori- 
ginators of  the  affray,  and  by  blackening*  the  Baptists, 
they  leave  a  happy  comparison  for  the  excesses  of  their  fa- 
vorites. Had  no  Baptists  been  mixed  up  in  this  affair,  no 
such  people  would  have  been  allowed  to  exist  at  the  time ; 
for  it  is  claimed  even  now  by  some  of  their  writers  that  the 
Baptists  began  with  Roger  Williams,  who  was  not  born 
till  ages  afterwards. 

Now  Cardinal  Hossins,  who  was  chairman  attheCouif- 
cil  of  Trent  and  whose  acquaintance  with  ancient  history 
is  undisputable,  says  of  these  people:  "If  the  truth  of  re- 
ligion were  to  be  judged  of  by  the  readiness  and  cheerful- 
ness which  a  man  of  any  sect  shows  in  suffering,  then  the 
opinions  and  persuasions  of  no  sect  can  be  truer  or  surer 
than  those  of  the  Ana-Baptists,  since  there  have  been  none 
for  these  twelve  hundred  years  past,  that  have  been  more 
grievously  punished."  ( This  one  sentence  carries  us  back 
as  a  denomination  to  the  year  340,  and  admitted  by  this 
learned  and  honest  historian.) 

We  cannot  close  this  brief  sketch  of  the  rise  and  prog- 
ress of  the  Baptists,  without  alluding  to  one  more  of  our 
ancient  brethren  so  distinguished  in  the  Church  history. 
The  beloved  and  eloquent  Menno  Simon  was  born  in  the 
year  1496,  at  Witmarsum,  in  Friesland.  He  was  a  Roman 
priest,  but  had  little  knowledge  of  the  Bible.  For  a  time, 
he  disdained  to  examine  the  Testament,  but  becoming  to 
some  extent  alarmed  about  his  situation,  he  was  induced 
to  read  the  Scriptures,  and  while  reading,  he  was  also  at- 
tracted to  the  writings  of  Luther,  and  became  convinced  of 
the  errors  of  Popery.  Among  the  thousands  that  suffered 
death  for  Ana-Baptism,  was  one  Snyden,  who  was  behead- 
ed. The  constancy  of  this  man  to  his  views  of  a.  believer's 
baptism,  preferring  death  to  renouncing  his  sentiments, 
.led  Menno  to  inquire  into  the  subject  of  baptism.  As  he 
could  not  find  infant  baptism  in  the  Bible,  he  consulted  a 
minister  of  that  persuasion,  and  was  told  that  it  had  no 


194 


foundation  in  the  Bible.  He  continued  his  researches  till 
he  became  confirmed  that  the  Baptists  were  right.  In 
studying  the  word  of  God,  he  was  deeply  convicted  of  sin 
and  converted  to  the  truth.  He  was  baptized  by  immer- 
sion, declaring  that  "he  could  not  find  any  other  baptism 
than  dipping  in  water,  which  was  acceptable  to  God."  He 
devoted  himself  with  great  zeal  and  power  in  preaching 
and  writing,  gathering  and  baptizing  great  numbers. 

Menno's  success  as  a  preacher  excited  the  envy  and  dis- 
pleasure of  the  State  parties,  and  in  1543  the  Emperor  of- 
fered a  reward  for  his  arrest.  But  an  interposing  Provi- 
dence opened  a  way  for  his  escape.  He  fled  into  distant 
provinces,  founded  churches,  supplied  them  with  pastors, 
and  established  a  printing  press  to  defend  the  denomina- 
tion against  the  reproaches  of  its  enemies.  His  followers 
were  called  Mennonites,  and  multiplied  greatly.  He  con- 
tinued his  labors  with  wonderful  success  for  twenty-five 
years,  preaching  in  England,  and  in  other  portions  of  Eu- 
rope, to  thousands  uwho  received  him  gladly."  He  was 
said  to  be  a  man  of  persuasive  eloquence  and  captivated 
his  hearers  everywhere  he  went  .  He  was  a  shining  mark  of 
his  day,  and  though  the  arrows  of  death  were  aimed  at  his 
noble  breast,  he  evaded  them  all  and  died  the  Christian's 
peaceful  death  and  in  the  triumphs  of  faith,  Jan.  15,  1561. 
In  him  the  Baptists  had  a  leader  worthy  of  their  cause, 
while  his  deeds  of  love  remain  embalmed  in  their  memories 
to  this  day. 

Taking  a  retrospective  view  in  concluding  these  sketch- 
es, enough  has  been  shown,  that  from  the  time  of  Pope 
Slyvester,  (during7  the  reign  of  Constantine,  when  tie  united 
the  spiritual  with  the  temporal  power,)  to  prove  the  exist- 
ence of  a  body  of  religious  men,  who  ever  opposed  such  a 
union,  and  vigorously  maintained  freedom  of  conscience 
and  the  entire  separation  of  Church  and  State. 

Nea  nder,  the  great  Church  historian,  considers  this  the 
true  historical  origin  of  the  sect  of  the  Waldenses  and  Don- 


atists,  who  from  this  time,  A.  I).  830,  with  their  successors, 
ever  opposed  the  union  and  held  that  "Christ  in  dying  for 
men,  has  given  Christians  the  example  to  die,  but  not  to 
kill-" 

Even  since  the  Reformation,  there  is  not  a  confession 
of  faith  by  any  of  the  reformers  which  does  not  give  to  the 
magistrate  a  coercive  power  in  religion.  Luther,  as  to  the 
Jews,  1 '  thought  their  Synagogues  should  be  leveled  with  the 
ground,  their  houses  burnt,  and  their  books  taken  from 
them."  Many  of  the  Ana-Baptists  were  also  put  to  death 
by  the  Lutherans.  Nor  can  Calvin  be  acquitted  of  the 
death*  of  Servetus.  Melancthon,  Bucer,  and  many  other  of 
the  reformers  favored  his  execution.  In  England  the  same 
spirit  prevailed .  Henry  VIII,  burned  Papists  and  Baptists 
at  the  same  stake,  and  Cranmers  hands  were  stained  with 
the  blood  of  pious  women,  while  Queen  Elizabeth,  re-light- 
ed the  fires  of  Smithfield,  like  her  father,  to  burn  the  Ana- 
Baptists  and  Catholics.  King  James,  resolved  to  break 
the  spirit  of  the  Non-Conformists,  if  it  would  not  bow. 

Nor  did  the  Presbyterians,  when  they  obtained  the 
power,  neglect  using  the  authority  of  the  State  to  prose- 
cute. In  Scotland,  they  forbade  "  all  printers  in  the  king- 
dom from  printing  any  confession  of  faith  without  warrant 
signed  by  the  clerk  of  the  assembly/ '  In  1642,  they  or- 
dered Koman  Catholics  to  renounce  their  obstinacy,  un- 
der penalty  of  punishment  and  imprisonment.  Down  to 
the  period  of  the  Revolution  all  the  colonies,  except  Rhode 
Island  and  Pennsylvania,  had  more  or  less  an  established 
Church,  and  therefore  religious  persecution. 

In  New  England  the  Congregationalists  opposed  liber- 
ty of  conscience  and  bitterly  persecuted  the  Quakers  a  nd 
Baptists. 

The  Episcopalians  collected  their  tithes  by  law  in  Eng- 
land, and  their  tobacco  tax  in  America  and  conferred  no 
offices  of  State  but  upon  their  own  members.    As  late  as 


196 


1768  and  1770  the  land  of  the  Baptists  in  Massachusetts 
was  sold  to  support  the  Episcopal  clergy. 

The  Methodists,  too,  at  one  time,  joined  with  the  Epis- 
copalians in  favor  of  the  support  of  religion  by  the  State. 

Of  the  millions  of  all  denominations  in  this  country, 
who  now  enjoy  the  inestimable  blessing  of  religious  liberty 
and  of  all  those  in  Europe  and  the  world,  who  are  now  ad- 
vocating it  in  various  degrees,  few  are  aware  how  much 
they  are  indebted  for  these  enjoyments  to  the  Baptists. 
"The  voice  of  public  opinion  is  now  heard  and  feared  on 
these  subjects  by  all  the  spiritual  tyrants  of  Europe. 

Spain  and  Italy,  the  home  of  the  Pope,  have  been  com- 
pelled to  abandon  the  horrors  of  the  inquisition. 

The  King  of  Prussia  has  set  his  seal  against  intoler- 
ance and  any  established  Church." 

France  affords  religious  protection  to  all. 

The  Mohammedan  empire  has  sheathed  her  bloody 
sword.  In  Burmah,  where  Judson,  thirty  or  forty  years 
ago,  was  persecuted,  the  Baptists  preach  unmolested. 

China,  with  her  four  hundred  millions,  so  long  shut  up 
in  idolatry,  no  longer  opposes  the  introduction  of  the  true 
gospel.  Who  can  contemplate  this  wonderful  and  blessed 
change  of  affairs  without  the  warmest  emotions?  The 
Baptists,  guided  by  Him,  h  who  doethall  things  well,"  after 
these  long  ages  of  persecution  and  suffering,  rejoice  with 
their  brethren  of  all  denominations  who  have  united  at  last 
with  them  in  establishing  religious  and  civil  liberty  through- 
out all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  and  erecting  the  banner  of 
Testis  in  evangelizing  the  world. 

We  have  thus  endeavored,  though  in  a  feeble  and  brief 
manner,  to  trace  the  footsteps  of  the  Baptists  from  the 
days  of  the  Apostles  down  to  the  seventeeth  century.  If 
we  have  done  no  more  than  to  excite  a  desire  in  the  mind 
of  the  reader  of  these  pages,  to  peruse  for  himself  the  his- 
tory of  his  fathers,  to  see  what  a  chain  of  testimony 
stretches  along  through  centuries  past,  of  their  lives,  of 


197 


their  suffering  and  labors,  hand  down  to  us  the  pure  to 
gospel  of  Christ,  and  the  "  ordinances  once  delivered  to  the 
saints, ' '  we  are  fully  repaid  for  our  work  of  love.  We  think 
we  have  shown  that  the  great  Baptist  family  now  spread 
over  nearly  every  country  of  the  globe,  have  never  ceased 
to  exist,  if  not  in  name,  yet  in  faith  and  practice,  since  our 
Savior  proclaimed  his  great  commission  to  his  Disciples. 
It  has  afforded  us  mixed  emotions  in  our  researches  for 
truth.  The  witnesses  we  have  referred  to,  their  spotless 
lives,  their  steadfastness  to  the  laws  of  the  Kedeemer,  their 
self-denial,  their  perseverance  through  suffering,  darkness 
and  death,  amid  vice,  wickedness  and  persecution,  through 
successive  ages,  have  raised  our  admiration  and  gratitude 
above  our  griefs,  and  our  mental  pleasures. 


OUTLINES  OF  HISTORY 

OF  THE 

Brier  Creek  Association 

This  Association  was  organized  November  23rd,  1822, 
at  Brier  Creek  Church,  in  Wilkes  county.   The  following  are 
the  names  of  the  delegates  who  composed  the  convention, 
viz :   From  Brier  Creek  Church,  Thomas  Hasten,  William 
Gilliam,  William  King,  John  Martin  and  James  Martin; 
Bethel,  William  Dodson,  Sr.,  Wm.  Dodson,  Jr.,  and  George 
Gilreath;  Fishing  Creek,  Jesse  Adams,  Joshua  Johnston 
and  W.  W.  Wright;  Little  River,  John  Swaim,  James  Rob- 
inett  and  Archibald  Brown ;  Mitchell's  River,  Stephen  Pot- 
ter, John  Marsh  and  Gideon  Potter;  Snow  Creek,  John 
I  Angel ;  Roaring  River,  Thos.  Douglas  and  Elisha  Richard- 
son; Zion  Hill,  Wm.  Mitchell  and  Jonathan  Woody  ;  Cool 
;  Spring,  Ambrose  Johnson  and  David  Jacks.   The  above 
!  named  Churches  at  that  time  formed  a  portion  of  the  Yad- 
;  kin  Association.   Rev.  Thos.  Masten  was  elected  modera- 
tor and  Col.  James  Martin,  clerk.   The  committee  on  Rules 
and  Decorum,  were  Thomas  Wright,  William  King  and 
|  William  Dodson,  Sr.   The  committee's  report  on  Articles 
of  Faith  and  Rules  of  Decorum  was  adopted,  the  same  be- 
I  ing  substantially  those  held  by  this  body  at  the  present 
time.   This  committee  was  composed  of  able  and  judicious 
men.   Thomas  Wright  represented  his  county  (Surry)  for 


200 


nearly  twenty  years,  and  most  of  the  time  in  the  Senate  of 
the  Legislature. 

The  Brier  Creek  Association  never  failed  to  meet  in  an- 
nual session  for  66  years,  and  once  in  1834  it  met  semi- 
annually, and  during  this  long  period  it  has  persistently 
held  and  practiced  the  principles  of  our  fathers  of  past  cen- 
turies.  Although  its  members  were  generally  uneducated, 
the  records  show  a  remarkable  disposition  among  them  to  • 
stick  to  the  old  landmarks  of  our  fathers  and  the  doctrines 
taught  by  the  Apostles.   Many  of  its  members  wielded  a 
great  influence  for  good  in  State  and  Church,  and  preached 
the  gospel  with  power-  and  effect,    Thousands  were  con- 
verted and  added  to  the  churches  under  their  ministry.   At  ' 
their  annual  meetings  thousands  came  from  long  distances 
to  hear  the  word,  which  resulted  in  the  conversion  of  vast 
numbers.   It  appears  from  reading  the  old  records,  that 
much  more  interest  was  manifested  in  their  annual  gath- 
erings in  regard  to  preaching  and  prayer,  than  those  of 
more  modem  times.   Most  of  the  time  Avas  spent  in  efforts  j 
for  the  unconverted,  and  in  fact  little  else  was  done.  A 
regular  correspondence  was  kept  up  with  sister  Associa- 
tions, and  the  visits  made  from  one  to  the  other  were  re- 
ceived with  gladness  and  much  good  feeling.   From  the 
time  the  Association  was  organized  in  1822  up  to  1838, 
perfect  harmony  existed  between  the  different  bodies,  in 
faith  and  doctrine.   During  this  period  there  seems  to  be 
no  account  of  the  appointment  of  committees  to  report  on  j 
benevolent  objects,  or  discussions,  on  education,  Sabbath 
schools,  missions,  or  temperance,  or  contributions  for  any 
object,  except  to  defray  the  printing  of  the  minutes,  and 
occasionally  small  sums  given  to  ministers  who  came  as 
visitors  from  a  distance.   And  yet  they  seemed  to  have  had 
as  much  real  enjoyment  of  religion,  or  more,  than  people 
now  a  days.   Such  earnest  and  devoted  preachers  as  Smith 
Furgeson,  Thomas  Douglas,  John  Angel,  (who  served 
eight  years  a  soldier  in  the  Revolutionary  war)  S.  D. 


201 

Swaim,  Jesse  'Adams,  Richard  Jacks,  Win.  Goforth,  William 
Richards,  Peter  Owen,  S.  P.  Smith,  Z.  B.  Adams  and  his 
brother,  W.  F.  Adams,  Win.  Garner,  and  many  others, 
who  spent  long  and  useful  lives  in  the  ministry,  have  passed 
over  the  river  to  receive  their  reward. 

Along-  about  the  year  1838,  the  agitation  on  the  sub- 
ject of  home  and  foreign  missions  began,  at  first  among 
some  of  the  Churches,  and  afterwards  was  taken  up  by  the 
Associations.  The  Mountain,  the  Three  Fork,  Lewis  Fork 
and  Mayo,  so  long  in  harmony  with  the  Brier  Creek  Asso- 
ciation became  offended  with  her  for  advocating  the  ob- 
jects of  the  Baptist  State  Convention  and  withdrew  their 
fellowship.  The  following  extract  of  a  letter  from  the 
Mountain  Association,  will  serve  to  illustrate  the  com- 
mencement of  hostilities  against  the  position  taken  by  the 
Brier  Creek  at  this  date. 

"  North  Carolina,  Ashe  County,  September  1st,  1838. 
The  Mountain  Association  to  her  Sister  the  Brier  Creek  : 

Very  Dear  Brethren  :— Feeling  desirous  to  keep  up  a 
correspondence  with  you, we  submit  to  you  the  conditions 
that  we  are  willing  still  to  correspond  with  you.  That  is, 
we  have  dropped  a  correspondence  with  all  Associations, 
and  agree  to  revive  it  on  the  following  terms,  viz  :  To  ad- 
vise the  Churches  to  deal  with  any  member  of  their  body 
who  may  join  any  of  the  institutions  of  the  day,"  &c. 

(Signed.)   Tobias  Long,  Moderator. 

Ft.  Gentry,  Clerk. 

On  motion  the  above  proposed  correspondence  was 
unanimously  rejected y  Some  of  the  Churches  in  the  Brier 
Creek  Avere  much  divided  on  the  subject  a  nd  for  a  time  rent 
asunder.  While  steadfastly  holding  on  to  the  ancient  land- 
marks, and  the  cardinal  principles  of  the  New  Testament, 
not  till  the  year  A.  D.,  1850,  28  years  of  its  existence,  did 
the  Association  go  into  active  work  respecting  the  object 
of  contention  among  other  Associations  and  some  of  her 


202 


own  members.  It  was  during  this  year  that  that  noble 
Christian  man,  Rev.  J.  J.  James,  at  that  time  the  editor  of 
the  Biblical  Recorder,  and  who  is  still  living,  visited  the 
body  in  the  interests  of  general  education  and  Missions. 
He  was  heartily  received  by  the  Association  and  preached 
with  great  ability.  We  find  by  reference  to  the  minutes  of 
that  year,  that.  Elder  S.  P.  Smith  and  James  Parks  were 
appointed  a,  committee  to  write  a  short  report  on  Home 
Missions,  and  elders  Z.  B.  Adams  and  J.  B.  Green  to  Write 
on  Foreign  Missions,  and  Elder  W.  F.  Adams  and  Brother 
David  Edwards  to  write  a  report  on  the  propriety  of  Sab- 
bath Schools.  Elder  James  got  in  a  resolution  "  to  estab- 
lish a  Female  Academy."  Thus  the  work  of  education  and 
missions  began,  and  the  next  year  (1851)  we  find  admira- 
ble resolutions  on  "  Missions  and  Sabbath  Schools."  Thus 
after  a  period  of  thirty  years  from  the  organization  of  the 
Association,  the  objects  of  which  have  called  forth  so  much 
spirited  and  useful  discussion,  appear  for  the  first  time  on 
the  records.  In  the  year  1831,  Dr.  Samuel  Wait,  the  found- 
er and  president  of  Wake  Forest  College,  was  traveling 
through  the  State  in  the  cause  of  education  and  visited  the 
Association,  then  in  session  at  Bethel  church.  We  have 
heard  him  speak  of  this  visit  and  the  difficulties  he  en- 
countered on  account  of  his  advocating  home  and  foreign 
missions.  The  Association  at  Bethel  permitted  him  to 
preach  on  Sunday  and  just  before  it  adjourned  the  follow- 
ing resolution  was  introduced  by  the  clerk  and  adopted : 
"  Resolved,  that  this  Association  feel  friendly  disposed  to- 
wards the  efforts  making  by  the  Baptist  State  Convention 
of  North  Carolina  for  the  more  general  spread  of  the  gospel 
and  for  the  improvement  of  the  ministry."  Adjourned. 

Thomas  Douglas.  Moderator. 

James  Martin,  Clerk. 
This  was  in  1831.   There  seems  to  be  no  further  action 
taken  on  the  subject  till  the  year  1850,  as  we  have  before 
stated,  a  period  of  nearly  20  years.   The  denomination 


203 


had  no  religious  newspaper  in  the  State,  in  fact,  none  of 
the  other  denominations  had  any  up  to  this  time.  The 
Baptist  State  Convention  came  into  existence  in  1830,  and 
at  once  began  its  great  work,  to  get  the  churches  and  As- 
sociations to  unite  their  efforts  for  the  spread  of  the  Gos- 
pel, and  encourage  education.  So  the  Baptists,  who  have 
often  been  stigmatized  by  our  brethren  of  other  denomina  - 
tions as  an  "ignorant  set,"  were  the  first  in  the  State  to 
utilize  the  power  of  the  press;  Thomas  Meredith  having 
established  the  Biblical  Recorder  in  1832,  years  before  any 
other  religious  journal  was  published  in  the  State.  So 
Wake  Forest  College  was  the  first  denominational  college 
in  the  State,  beginning  operations  in  1833,  and  is  still  the 
leading  institution  and  the  best  endowed  and  equipped  in 
the  State.  The  Brier  Creek  Avas  one  of  the  original  four- 
teen Associations  to  aid  in  these  useful  and  indispensable 
enterprises,  and  among  the  earliest  representatives  with 
her  sons  in  the  college.  But  still,  as  a  general  thing,  the 
masses  were  slow  to  seize  on  to  anything  new,  and  moved 
with  great  caution.  Doctor  Wait  stated  to  us  that  he 
found  these  Baptists  of  the  mountains  immvoable  as  the 
rocks  in  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  although 
they  looked  upon  him  at  first  with  suspicion,  and  that  he 
had  sometimes  to  spread  down  his  blanket  under  the  trees 
by  the  roadside  to  repose  at  night,  rather  than  impose  him- 
self upon  their  hospitality ;  and  yet  when  they  fully  under- 
stood his  mission  among  them  he  was  always  a  welcome 
guest  .  The  strong  native  talent  of  the  preachers  and  their 
zeal,  excited  his  admiration  and  won  his  affections,  al- 
though they  then  differed  with  him  on  the  subject  of  mis- 
sions. 

In  the  year  1834,  the  Association  was  visited  by  the 
lamented  Rev.  N.  A.  Pnrefoy,  as  agent  of  the  State  con- 
vention, and  after  a  sermon  by  him  on  Sunday  ,  a  collection 
was  taken  up  amounting  to  $  16.51,  for  the  objects  of  the 
convention,  so  feeble  was  the  interest  felt  at  this  time. 


204 


That  talented  preacher,  John  Culpepper,  was  in  the  As- 
sociation in  1836,  and  the  eloquent  William  Hill  Jordan, 
in  1847,  and  created  much  enthusiasm  by  their  irresistible 
power  and  influence  in  the  cause  of  religion.  In  1851  Rev. 
S.  P.  Smith  rode  as  missionary  in  the  bounds  of  the  Asso- 
ciation and  was  supported  by  liberal  contributions.  In 
1852,  there  was  much  dissension  among  some  of  the 
churches  regarding  the  order  of  the  Sons  of  Temperance, 
and  many  were  excluded  from  the  Church  for  joining  that 
society,  the  objection  being  mainly  on  account  of  its  being 
a  secret  society.  This  agitation  was  kept  up  for  a  time 
with  much  bitterness,  and  gave  rise  to  the  Taylorsville  As- 
sociation (  iioav  the  Brushy  Mountain )  which  adopted  tem- 
perance as  one  of  its  cardinal  features.  After  a  few  years 
this  contention  was  reconciled  and  harmony  restored.  The 
opposition  to  the  various  benevolent  institutions  in  the 
Brier  Creek,  and  in  most  of  the  others,  died  away,  and  from 
year  to  year,  as  these  subjects  are  discussed  with  increased 
interest,  it  seems  strange  to  us  of  this  age  that  there  ever 
could  have  been  any  such  feeling  of  opposition  among  these 
noble  followers  of  Christ. 

For  many  years  it  was  the  custom  of  the  Brier  Creek 
Association  to  appoint  some  one  of  its  members  to  write 
what  they  called  a  circular  letter  every  year  to  be  read  be- 
fore the  body,  on  some  doctrinal  subject,  and  printed  in 
their  minutes.  Some  of  these  letters  would  do  credit  to  our 
ablest  divines  and  are  worthy  of  a  Avider  circulation  .  For 
instance,  the  one  written  by  the  Rev.  S.  P.  Smith,  in  1847, 
in  which  the  question,  "What  is«  a  Church?"  is  clearly 
stated  and  argued  in  a  fair  and  impartial  manner. 

The  question  propounded  is  one  about  which  theolo- 
gians of  all  denominations  generally  differ,  but  it  is  an- 
swered in  an  able  and  lucid  style.  The  one  written  by  Rev. 
J.  P.  Adams  in  1858  on  "  covetousness  "  ought  to  be  re- 
published. 

The  Duty  of  Churches  to  their  Pa  stors,  written  in  1 805 


205 


by  Rev.  Y.  Jordan,  gives  us  briefly  a  lesson  that  should  be 
impressed  upon  every  Church  in  the  Association ;  and  one 
of  the  best  essays  on  that  difficult  subject,  The  Doctrine  of 
Election,  is  handled  in  a  masterly  manner  by  Rev.  J.  A. 
Martin,  a  layman,  in  the  year  1868. 

The  custom  of  writing  these  circular  letters  ceased  in 
the  year  1869,  18  years  ago,  the  last  one  having  been  writ- 
ten by  Franklin  Cray,  and  in  their  place  the  time  is  consum- 
ed in  public  discussion  of  various  topics  of  much  interest 
and  on  reports  of  committees  which  attract  large  crowds  of 
people  eager  to  hear  and  learn  something  of  the  great  work 
now  in  progress  in  the  Christian  world.  The  good  order 
and  decorum  observed  at  these  meetings  and  the  adherence 
to  strict  parliamentary  usages  would  surprise  the  American 
Senate  and  put  to  shame  the  noisy  arid  boisterous  Houses 
of  the  English  Parliament. 

The  plan  of  organizing  each  successive  year  in  the  elec- 
tion of  its  officers  by  ballot  and  the  mode  of  conducting 
their  sessions  is  different  from  any  other  Christian  body  on 
the  face  of  the  globe.  The  rights  of  private  members  and 
the  liberty  reserved  by  the  individual  churches  are  striking 
characteristics  of  American  freedom,  and  impress  the  by- 
stander with  the  idea  that  Christ  alone  is  the  Head  of  the 
Church.  The  ministers  are  but  the  servants  of  the  church- 
es and  the  delegates  are  simply  the  annual  representatives 
chosen  by  the  members  of  each  church. 

For  67  years  the  Brier  Creek  Association  has  called  to- 
gether these  Baptists  of  the  mountain  country  to  consult 
together  about  the  great  mission  of  our  Savior  to  the 
earth,  and  devise  plans  to  build  up  and  extend  his  kingdom 
among  men  by  the  conversion  of  sinners  and  to  aid  in  the 
final  redemption  of  the  world. 

Ha  ving  thus  briefly  outlined  the  history  of  this  Associ- 
ation, we  proceed  now  to  give  some  biographical  sketches 
of  some  of  its  principle  members,  some  of  those  who  have 
gone  up  to  the  promised  land  and  some  who  are  still  lin- 
gering on  the  shores  of  time. 


206 


ITS  MODERATORS. 

1st.  Rev.  Thomas  Masten  was  the  first  elected  modera- 
tor in  1822,  when  the  Association  was  organized .  He  ser  ved 
two  years.  He  was  a  member  of  Brier  Creek  church  and  his 
remains  lie  in  the  church  cemetery.  He  lived  a  long-  and 
useful  life.  He  Avas  pastor  of  his  church  a  s  far  back  as  1 802 
and  served  several  years. 

2nd.  William  Dodson  was  chosen  moderator  in  1824. 
and  served  two  years.  He  was  a  man  of  great  force  of 
character,  and  one  of  the  leading  ministers  of  his  day.  He 
was  a  Virginian  by  birth,  and  the  uncle  of  that  sainted 
.  missionary  of  the  cross,  Rev.  Elias  Dodson,  who  died  a  few 
years  ago  in  the  city  of  Wilmington,  and  who  was  so  much 
loved  throughout  the  entire  State.  The  ashes  of  Elder 
Wm.  Dodson  are  in  the  graveyard  of  Three  Fork's*ehurch. 
in  Alexander  county.   He  lived  to  a  ripe  old  age. 

3rd.  Rev.  John  Walker  succeeded  William  Dodson,  and 
served  three  years.  His  name  appears  often  in  the  early 
records,  and  he  must  have  been  a  man  of  extended  useful- 
ness, though  the  writer  has  no  statistics  of  his  general 
character. 

4th.  Thomas  Douglas  was  the  fourth  moderator  and 
served  four  years.  He  is  said  to  have  been  an  earnest  and 
effective  speaker,  and  was  looked  upon  as  one  of  the  best 
men  in  his  day.  He  was  generally  chosen  to  preach  on 
stated  occasions  to  large  congregations.  He  lived  to  be 
quite  old  and  died,  I  believe,  in  the  county  of  Ashe  where  he 
had  always  lived. 

5th.  Smith  Furgeson  came  in  as  the  fifth  moderator 
and  served  four  years.  The  writer  was  well  acquainted 
with  this  devoted  Christian  minister.  We  haA7e  rarely 
known  a  man  of  greater  usefulness.  He  served  his  genera- 
tion as  a  preacher  for  over  half  a  century.  His  sermons 
were  full  of  the  gospel  and  delivered  with  so  much  simplic- 
ity and  zeal  a  s  rarely  to  fail  to  excite  his  audience  to  tears. 


207 


Although  like  those  mentioned  before,  wfthdiit  an  educa- 
tion, he  was  well  versed  in  the  Scriptures,  and  his  spotless 
character  gave  him  great  favor  with  the  people.  He  lived 
to  be  very  old,  and  died  in  Wilkes  county,  his  native  home, 
leaving  a  large  circle  of  relatives  and  friends  to  follow  after. 

6th.  Jesse  Adams  served  as  moderator  thirteen  years 
in  succession  and  up  to  his  death.  He  was  a,  model  minis- 
ter, a  good  executive  officer,  and  universally  esteemed.  He 
raised  a  large  family,  and  three  of  his  sons  followed  him  in  the 
ministry,  W.  F.  and  Z.  B.  and  J.  P.,  the  latter  still  living. 
He  died  in  the  year  1849,  in  Wilkes  county.  Resolutions 
in  regard  to  his  death  are  found  in  the  minutes  of  the  next 
session.  Although  a  man  of  little  education,  his  pure  life 
and  zeal  for  the  cause  won  the  confidence  of  the  world. 

7th.  Solomon  D.  Swaim  succeeded  Elder  J.  Adams  and 
served  for  fifteen  years.  He  was  born,  lived  and  died  in 
Yadkin  county,  Febuary  23rd,  1865,  being  57  years  of  age. 
He  was  ordained  as  a  minister  at  Swaim 's  church  in  1812 
and  was  a  successful  preacher.  He  was  an  active  and  ag- 
gressive man  and  baptized  many  hundreds  of  people.  He 
always  exhibited  the  spirit  of  his  Master  and  was  as  harm- 
less as  a  dove.  A  large  circle  of  relatives  and  friends  are 
left,  to  follow  his  shining  light.  We  suppose  the  death  of 
no  man  in  this  country  was  more  universally  regretted 
than  Bro.  Swaim's.  He  was  called  away  in  the  very  prime 
of  his  usefulness. 

8th.  J.  A.  Martin,  a  layman,  now  served  as  moderator 
for  two  years  and  made  a  good  officer. 

0th.  Elder  Thomas  Howell  served  two  3*ears  and  was 
known  as  a  good  and  zealous  man. 

10th.  Elder  W.  F.  Adams,  one  of  the  sons  of  the  old 
moderator,  (Jesse  Adams)  was  chosen  to  preside  over  the 
body  for  6  years,  when  failing  health  forced  him  to  decline. 
He  was  pastor  of  old  Brier  Creek  church  for  a  period  of 
thirty  years.  He  was  not  only  an  acceptable  preacher  but 
a  valuable  citizen  and  neighbor.   He  lies  buried  at  li is  own 


208 


residence  in  the  Yadkin  river  valley  in  Wilkes  comity. 

11th.  Richard  W.  Wooten  was  elected  in  1875,  and  serv- 
ed three  years.  Bro.  Wooten  gained  the  confidence  of  his 
brethren  and  is  still  a  useful  minister  of  the  gospel  and  al- 
ways present  at  the  Associations,  giving  aid  and  counsel  to 
his  brethren. 

12th.  L.  P.  Gwaltney  was  chosen  in  1878  and  served 
for  six  years  and  declined  to  be  re-elected,  preferring  a  seat 
on  the  floor.  He  has  since  organized  an  Association  com- 
posed of  the  churches  of  Alexander  county  in  which  he  re- 
sides. This  popular  and  much  beloved  minister  of  the  gos- 
pel received  but  a  partial  education  at  WTake  Forest  Col- 
lege, and  yet  few  ministers  in  the  State  surpass  him  in  the 
use  of  the  English  language,  or  pulpit  eloquence.  Although 
comparatively  a  young  man,  he  has  gained  an  enviable 
reputation  among  his  ministering  brethren. 

13th.  Elder  William  Meyres  succeeded  Elder  Gwaltney 
in  1884  and  still  presides  over  the  body.  Brother  My  res, 
though  deprived  of  an  education,  by  his  indomitable  ener- 
gy and  zeal  for  his  Master,  has  large  influence  over  the 
churches,  and  has  succeeded  in  erecting  new  and  comfortable 
church  edifices  wherever  he  is  called  as  pastor.  He  is  an 
active  co-operator  in  every  good  work. 

There  were  other  ministers  in  this  Association,  besides 
the  moderators,  who  deserve  even  more  than  a  passing- 
notice. 

Rev.  Win.  Pool,  of  Little  River  church,  in  Alexander 
county,  was  a  member  of  this  bod}'.  He  died  as  he  had  al- 
ways lived,  with  his  armor  bright.  Four  of  his  sons  are 
ministers,  James  B.,  W.  A.,  C.  C.  and  Daniel  WT.,  all  active, 
intelligent  and  prominent  gospel  workers  and  popular  pas- 
tors, preaching  the  word  with  success. 

Rev.  S.  P.  Smith  was  for  a.  long  time  a  leading  light  in 
this  body.  His  preaching  was  attended  with  power  and 
hundreds  were  converted  under  his  ministry.  He  left  the 
Association  during  the  excitement  upon  the  mission  and 


209 


temperance  question  and  formed  the  Taylorsville  Associa- 
tion and  became  its  moderator.  The  Taylorsville  at  a  la- 
ter period  became  the  Brushy  Mountain,  and  Bro.  Smith's 
church  was  attached  to  the  Elkin.  He  was  the  first  mis- 
sionary officially  appointed  to  ride  and  preach  in  the  Brier 
Creek  Association,  aided  by  the  Baptist  Sta/te  convention, 
and  Avas  the  agent  for  several  years  of  the  Western  conven- 
tion, and  was  the  first  Baptist  minister  to  preach  in  the 
old  town  of  Morgan  ton-.  He  was  a  zealous  advocate  of 
education,  missions  and  temperance,  and  when  opposed, 
his  convictions  of  right  rendered  him  more  bold  and  fear- 
less. Like  some  of  our  other  ministers  he  was  at  a  later 
period  of  his  life  drawn  into  politics.  In  1861,  he  was 
elected,  with  Dr.  James  Calloway,  a  member  of  the  State 
convention  in  opposition  to  secession.  In  1863  his  friends 
run  his  name  for  Congress,  but  he  would  not  enter  the  cam- 
paign. At  the  close  of  the  war  in  1865,  he  was  chosen  a 
member  of  the  State  convention  to  restore  the  State  to  the 
Union.  He  was  elected  to  the  Senate  in  1868,  and  served 
with  many  other  ministers  who  took  part  in  that  body. 
This  closed  his  political  aspirations.  He  had  many  ups 
and  downs  both  in  religious  and  political  life,  but  remained 
firm  and  immovable  in  his  convictions,  and  in  the  evening 
of  his  career  his  star  set  in  calmness  and  repose.  We  have 
heard  this  man  preach  some  of  the  most  soul-stirring  ser- 
mons to  which  we  have  ever  listened.  Though  of  limited 
education,  his  bearing  and  manner  in  the  pulpit  were 
attractive  and  commanding.  He  wras  annually  elected 
pastor  of  the  old  Fishing  Creek  church  for  48  years  and 
served  till  his  death. 

Rev.  William  Garner,  an  uneducated  man,  preached  for 
many  years  in  the  bounds  of  this  Association  and  delighted 
more  in  baptizing  the  willing  and  happy  candidate  than 
any  man  we  ever  knew.  Thousands  were  converted  under 
his  simple  but  earnest  style  of  preaching  the  gospel.  He 
would  often  compose  his  own  songs  to  suit  the  occasion. 


210 


He  died  in  Wilkes  county  and  his  aged  companion  still 
survives  him. 

Rev.  W.  G.  Brown,  known  as  ".The  Sweet  Singer  in  Is- 
rael," has  been  a  constant  attendant  on  these  meetings  for 
a  long  number  of  years.  He  is  an  able  expounder  of  the 
Scriptures  and  a  popular  pastor,  for  many  years  the  mod- 
erator of  the  old  Yadkin  Association.  Having  no  educa- 
tion he  supplied  himself  with  a  selected  library  after  he  was 
called  to  the  ministry,  and  by  close  application  speaks  the 
English  language  to  perfection,  and  has  really  an  elegant 
and  beautiful  style.  To  listen  to  his  discourses  one  would 
take  him  to  be  a  highly  educated  preacher.  He  has  raised 
up  three  sons  to  be  ministers.  One,  Judson,  died  in  the 
State  of  Missouri  where  he  was  a,  leading  spirit.  Another, 
Sandford,  a  young  man,  has  risen  rapidly  to  the  top  of  his 
profession  and  is  now  the  secretary  of  the  Missouri  Baptist 
State  Convention.  Another,  Solomon,  is  preaching  in  this 
his  native  State,  well  versed  in  doctrine. 

We  might  continue  these  biographical  sketches  to 
great  length,  but  we  fear  to  encumber  the  pages  of  this  lit- 
tle volume.  This  mountain  country  seems  to  have  been 
peculiarly  productive  of  Baptist  preachers.  By  reference 
to  one  of  the  late  minutes  of  this  body,  we  see  no  less  than 
thirty  ordained  ministers  enrolled  on  its  register.  Educa- 
tion is  encouraged,  Sabbath  schools  are  established,  mis- 
sions liberally  sustained,  and  the  cause  of  Christ  built  up 
in  our  waste  places.  Fountains  of  Scriptural  and  literary 
knowledged  are  opened  up  by  these  zealous  Baptists  of  the 
old  Brier  Creek,  "  which  shall  make  glad  the  city  of  our 
God" 

Other  Associations  have  been  formed  out  of  its  bor- 
ders, new  churches  springing  up  each  year,  and  a  millen- 
nium dawn  is  visible  in  the  horizon  for  these  co-laborers  of 
Christ.  If  this  Association  has  done  so  much  in  the  past, 
much  more  is  expected  to  be  done  in  the  future.  "With  her 
host  of  leaders  and  her  army  in  the  ranks,  victory  shall  be 


211 


inscribe  on  her  banners,  and  her  captives  numbered  by  the 
thousand  !  1  So  mote  it  be. 

THE  CLERKS. 

1st.  Col.  James  Martin  was  elected  clerk  when  the  As- 
sociation was  organized  on  the  23rd  day  of  November, 
1822,  and  served  continuously  for  twenty-five  years.  By 
careful  examination  of  the  minutes  we  find  that  he  never 
failed  to  attend  as  clerk  of  the  body  till  the  day  of  his 
death.  He  was  a  man  of  great  influence  in  Church  and 
county,  raised  a  large  and  highly  respected  family,  and 
being  a  man  of  ample  means  he  was  liberal  to  the  poor  and 
a  zealous  friend  to  all  benevolent  institutions.  The  doors 
of  his  house  were  always  open  to  the  weary  traveller,  and  a 
home  for  the  preachers.  He  was  one  of  the  first  advocates 
in  this  country  for  missions  and  education  and  aided  in  es- 
tablishing Wake  Forest  College.  He  died  suddenly  in  the 
midst  of  his  usefulness  in  the  70th  year  of  his  age  and  was 
buried  in  Brier  Creek  churchyard  in  the  valley  of  the  Yad- 
kin. His  ancestors  came  from  Virginia  and  settled  along 
this  valley  and  took  an  active  part  in  the  Revolution. 

2nd.  Rev.  S.  P.  Smith  succeeded  Col.  Martin  in  1840 
and  served  three  years.  *  We  have  before  alluded  to  him  as 
a  preacher. 

3rd.  Elisha  Feltz  filled  the  office  three  years.  He  wrote 
a  beautiful  hand. 

4th.  Rev.  W.  F.  Adams  filled  the  office  satisfactorily 
nine  years,  from  1852  to  1801. 

5th.  He  was  succeeded  by  J.  A.  Martin,  a  prominent 
and  worthy  layman. 

0th.  Rev.  R.  W.  Wooten,  two  years  afterwards  was 
elected  and  served  three  years. 

7th.  Rev.  I.  N.  Haynes  was  elected  in  1805. 

8th.  Hix  Hendren,  next  came  in  and  served  three  years. 

9th.  In  1870,  E.  B.  Hendren  was  elected  and  accept- 
ably filled  the  office  to  1874. 


212 


10th.  Rev.  E.  N.  Gwyn,  was  then  chosen  and  for  his  pe- 
culiar clerical  talent  was  called  the  "model  Clerk."  He 
still  fills  this  important  office,  (1887.)  He  also  rode 
throughout  the  bounds  of  the  Association  for  some  years, 
as  agent  and  missionary  for  Sabbath  schools  and  the  build- 
ing up  of  new  churches,  and  his  labors  have  been  crowned 
with  success.  Whether  as  clerk,  missionary,  or  pastor,  his 
indefatigable  energy  never  tires.  He  is  an  important  fac- 
tor in  this  large  and  intelligent  body  of  Christians'  Hebe- 
longs  to  a  highly  intelligent  Pedo-Baptist  family,  and  was 
raised  up  in  that  faith.  By  reading  and  study  he  was 
converted  to  Baptist  principles,  and  boldly,  though  hum- 
bly, entered  their,  ranks  and  was  ordained  to  the  ministry. 

The  following  is  a  list  or  names  of  ministers  belonging 
to  the  Brier  Creek  Association  in  1886,  viz : 

J.  P.  Adams, A.N.  Barker,  J.W.  Burchett,C.  C.Brown, 
W.  Dowel,  A.  Gilreath,  S.  S.  Goforth,  A.  Gooden,  L.  P. 
Gwaltney,  J.  P.  Gwaltney,  W.  P.  Gray,  E.  N.  Gwyn,  J.  S. 
Forester,  I.  N.  Haynes,  I.  Hollar, E.  Hollar,  J.  N.Gregory, 
Y.  Jordan,  W.  A.  Myers,  B.  Mathews,  J.  H.  Martin,  T.  W. 
Paris,  I).  W.  Pool,  S.  F.  Simmons,  W.  C.  Segraves,  R.  W. 
Wooten,  J.  G.  Weatherman,  and  Thos.  Wright. 

Last  year  (1887)  twenty-six  churches,  with  a  member- 
ship of  two  thousand  five  hundred  and  eighty-five  com- 
municants, composed  the  body.  We  may  add  in  conclu- 
sion, that  while  the  churches,  at  their  own  option,  unite  in 
forming  an  Association  they  delegate  to  it  no  pow  er  over 
them,  still  reserving  their  independency,  and  acknowledging 
no  supremacy  but  Christ,  their  living  Head  and  Governor. 

In  taking  our  leave  of  collecting  these  materials  for  the 
future  historian,  we  tender  our  gratitude  to  Him  for  his 
goodness  and  mercy,  and  pray  for  His  blessings  upon  the 
members  of  our  beloved  Association. 


THE  lOOTH  flNNIVEI^SAI^Y  OP  THB 

Brier  (Sreek  <f  hurch, 

AUGUST  10th,  1883. 

(  ABBREVIATED .  ) 

By  Prof.  J.  H.  Foote. 
— o — 

Having  been  requested  a  short  time  ago  to  deliver  the 
Centennial  Address  before  the  Brier  Creek  Association, 
which  holds  its  session  here  at  old  Brier  Creek  church  to  cele- 
brate its  birth  of  100  years  ago,  I  enter  upon  the  task  as- 
signed me  with  little  hope  of  interesting  so  large  and  intel- 
ligent an  assembly.  The  subject  I  have  chosen  as  appro- 
priate for  the  occasion  is  "The  Progress  of  Baptist  Prin- 
ciples." 

The  study  of  the  history  and  lives  of  our  ancestors  is 
certainly  of  great  advantage.  Who  among  us  would  not 
delight  to  hear  of  the  good  deeds  and  brave  acts  of  our 
fathers?  The  child  sits  and  listens  with  animation  as  his 
sire  tells  of  the  thrilling  adventures  and.  hair-breadth  es- 
capes of  his  forefathers,  and  some  times  their  tragical  end. 
And  yet  how  wonderfully  ignorant  we  are  of  our  origin  and 
whence  we  came.  Many  of  us  scarcely  know  even  the  names 
of  our  grand-fathers.  But  if  this  be  true  of  our  own  bio- 
graphies, it  is  no  wonder  we  know  so  little  of  the  rise#and 
progress  of  our  religious  ancestors.    I  propose,  briefly, 


215 


then,  to  trace  their  footsteps  during  the  first  centuries  of 
the  Christian  era,  and  more  especially  to  speak  at  length 
of  their  progress  during  the  last  100  years. 

Ecclesiastical,  or  church  history,  has  employed  the  re- 
searches of  the  greatest  scholars  of  the  world.  Our  people 
read  the  ancient  and  modern  histories  of  nations,  and  gen- 
erally neglect  to  inform  themselves  about  the  history  of  the 
churches  which  succeeded  those  planted  in  the  days  of  the 
Apostles,  and  which  have  existed  through  centuries  of 
the  fiercest  persecutions  and  martyrdoms  to  the  present 
time.  Witnesses  for  the  truth  have  lived  and  maintained 
the  doctrine  and  ordinances  of  the  churches  which  the  in- 
spired Apostles  committed  to  their  keeping  through  all  ages. 

For  1500  years  that  Man  of  Sin,  Apostate  Rome,  has 
employed  armies  and  crusades,  inquisitions  and  tortures, 
prisons,  famine  and  the  stake  to  break  in  pieces  the  king- 
dom of  Christ— the  kingdom  spoken  of  in  the  second  chap- 
ter of  Daniel,  represented  by  a  stone  cut  out  of  the  moun- 
tain without  hands,  which  should  break  into  pieces  the 
kingdoms  of  earth  and  eventually  fill  the  world.  But  who 
is  it  that,  for  sixteen  centuries,  have  alone  fought  with 
Antichrist — 14  the  scarlet  harlot,  riding  on  the  beast  with 
ten  horns,  drunk  with  the  blood  of  the  saints  ?  "  Our  breth- 
ren of  other  denominations  can  go  back  only  to  the  Refor- 
mation to  begin  their  history,  while  we,  as  Baptists,  trace 
the  footprints  of  our  brethren  as  witnesses  for  Jesus 
through  the  dark  ages  of  the  past,  hid  among  the  Alpine 
rocks  of  Europe,  or  wandering  through  those  mountains 
and  deep  forests  where  the  caverns  in  which  they  were  con- 
cealed from  their  enemies  were  made  to  echo  their  songs  of 
praise  to  Him  who  "kept  them  as  in  the  hollow  of  His 
hand."  From  the  days  of  the  Apostles  down  to  the  19th 
century  they  "have  kept  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the 
saints.'' 

President  Edwards  says,  "God  was  pleased  to  main- 
tain an  uninterrupted  succession  of  witnesses  throughout 
the  whole  Dark  Ages,  in  Britain  as  well  as  in  France  and 
Germany,  who  held  to  the  faith  and  practices  of  the  Apos- 
tles." Dr.  Davis,  the  Bishop  of  Monmouth,  says:  "The 
ancient  Britons  kept  their  Christianity  pure,  unmixed  with 
human  tradition,  as  they  received  it  from  the  disciples  of 
Christ,  adhering  strictly  to  the  Word  of  (fod  as  their  only 
rule  of  faith  and  practice.'' 


216 


By  reference  to  the  Historical  Chart,  published  by  A.  B, 
Lyman,  and  who  was  not  a  Baptist,  but  an  impartial  wri- 
ter, we  form  some  idea  of  what  it  cost  our  brethren  to  hand 
down  to  us  these  sacred  principles.  He  says  that  during 
the  middle  ages  "Pope  Gregory  sent  Augustine,  with  40 
monks,  to  the  British  isles,  who  wished  to  impose  their 
creeds  upon  the  saints,  and  who  refusing  to  give  up  the 
right  to  worship  God  in  their  own  way,  after  fasting  and 
prayer  tor  three  whole  days,  1200  of  them  wTere  put  to 
death  in  the  most  cruel  maimer!"  Soon  after  this,  says 
the  same  writer,  "in  the  Council  of  Orleans,  three  men  are 
burned  to  death  for  denying  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass;" 
"and  that  in  the  12th  century,  during  the  time  of  Pope  In- 
nocent III,  twelve  hundred  thousand  of  these  innocent  Chris- 
tians were  slain  by  the  Inquisition!"  And  that  for  up- 
wards of  800  years  was  a,  scene  of  bloody  persecution,  while 
one  million  five  hundred  thousand  more  were  destroyed  by 
the  Papal  Church ! ' '  Reineri  as,  the  Inquisitor  General,  sent 
against  the  Waldenses  A.  D. ,  1240,  says :  "These sectarians 
are  the  most  dangerous  of  all  heretics.  They  have  existed 
since  the  days  of  Pope  Sylvester,  A.  D.  840,  and  some  say 
since  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  They  declare  themselves  to 
be  the  Apostles'  successors,  and  hold  ours  to  be  the 'whore 
of  Babylon . ' "  (See  Rev. ,  17th  ch . )  This  is  what  Reinerius 
said  of  our  brethren .  Cardinal  Hosius,  the  learned  defender 
of  the  Pope,  and  who  presided  at  the  Council  of  Trent,  says, 
"That  the  doctrines  of  Luther  and  Calvin  are  nearly  the 
same  as  the  Waldenses  held  hundreds  of  years  before  their 
day."  Tertullian  and  Origen,  the  greatest  luminaries  of 
the  third  century,  say  that  "in  the  year  130  Lucius,  the 
King  of  AVales,  was  baptized,  and  was  the  first  king  in  the 
world  to  embrace  Christianity." 

Nowr,  it  is  a  historical  fact  these  Christians,  called  by 
their  different  names  of  Waldenses,  Albigenses,  held 
and  practiced  the  very  same  principles  and  doctrines  as  the 
Baptists  of  the  present  day.  They  are  our  brethren,  and 
firmly  held  the  only  true  Church  of  Christ  to  be  "an  assem- 
bly of  baptized  believers"  On  this  account  the  Baptists 
may  be  considered  the  only  Christian  community  which  has 
stood  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles  and  preserved  the  pure 
doctrine  of  the  Gospel  during  all  the  Dark  Ages.  We  appeal, 
then,  to  the  pages  of  history  in  which  the  most  eminent 
scholars  give  the  clearest  proof,  that  not  in  one  country 


217 


alone,  but  through  the  (Various  kingdoms  of  the  world,  a 
succession  of  Baptist  communities  have  come  down  to  us. 
"all  striped  and  scarred  and  blood-covered,  a  line  of  mar- 
tyrs, slain  by  prison,  by  fire  and  by  sword !  We  hail  these 
as  the  true  and  faithful  witnesses  of  Jesus  during  all  those 
fearful  ages  when  the  Man  of  Sin 

"Sat  upon  the  seven  hills, 
And  from  his  tin-one  of  darkness  ruled  the  world'!" 

During*  the  first  three  centuries  we  see  the  Baptists 
formed  the  only  true  evangelical  society,  and  that  during 
this  time  the  Xovatian  Baptists  established  separate  and 
independent  churches,  which  have  continued  to  the  present 
time.  The  Oriental  Baptist  churches,  with  their  successors, 
the  Paulicians,  continued  in  their  purity  till  the  lOtli  cen- 
tury, when  they  visited  France,  where  they  grew  and  spread 
till  the  army  of  the  Crusades  scattered  them,  or  as  Ave  be- 
fore stated,  drowned  over  one  million  of  these  unoffending 
Christians  in  blood!  But  we  have  not  time  to  more  than 
briefly  allude  to  these  truths,  astonishing  as  they  may 
seem.  Let  us  then  approach  nearer  our  own  time  and  see 
how  these  principles  have  prevailed. 

Dr.  Mosheim,  the  distinguished  German  writer,  in  ids 
History,  volume  3rd,  page  79,  says:  "In  almost  all  the 
countries  of  Europe  an  unspeakable  number  of  Baptists 
preferred  death  in  its  worst  forms  to  a  retraction  of  their 
sentiments.  Neither  the  view  of  the  flames  that  were  kin- 
dled to  consume  them,  nor  the  ignominy  of  the  gibbet,  nor 
the  terrors  of  the  sword  could  shake  their  invincible  con- 
stancy or  make  them  abandon  tenets  tha/t  appeared  dearer 
to  them  .than  life  and  all  its  enjoyments."'  It  is  true,  says 
this  eminent  and  impartial  author,  "that  many  Baptists 
suffered  death,  not  on  account  of  their  being  rebellious  sub- 
jects, but  merely  because  they  were  judged  to  be  incurable 
heretics  :  for  in -this  century  the  error  of  limiting  the  ad- 
ministration of  baj)tism  to  adult  persons  only,  and  tlw 
practice  of  re-baptizing  such  as  had  received  that  ordi- 
nance in  n  state  of  infancy,  were  looked  upon  as  most  fla- 
gitious and  intolerable  heresies.1' 

We  look  over  into  Protestant  England  in  the  year  1020, 
203  years  ago,  and  see  that  faithful  Baptist  minister,  John 
Bunyan,  shut  up  in  Bedford  jail  for  twelve  long  years  for 
advocating  these  same  principles,  preaching  from  the  iron 
bars  of  his  dark  prison  to  the  multitudes  gathered  around 


218 


him.  It  was  here  and  during  his  incarceration  that  he 
wrote  that  immortal  little  book, "  The  Pilgrim's  Progress,'7 
which  will  ever  remain  a  monument  to  his  memory  and  a 
rich  legacy  to  millions  unborn,  while  the  names  of  themon- 
archs  who  persecuted  him  will  forever  perish  from  the  face 
of  the  earth. 

Passing  rapidly  over  the  succession  of  Baptist  churches 
in  England  and  Wales,  it  is  an  established  fact  that  a  ma- 
jority of  the  churches  plan  ted  in  America  from  1645  to  1730 
were  organized  by  Welsh  Baptists,  and  constituted  on 
Articles  of  Faith  brought  over  by  them  from  the  mother 
churches.  To  Dr.  John  Clarke  belongs  the  honor  of  organ- 
izing the  first  Baptist  church  in  America,  in  the  year  1 620, 
and  not  to  Roger  Williams  as  many  have  asserted. 

But  I  wish  to  pause  here,  to  present  to  this  large  and 
very  attentive  audience  another  view  of  this  subject,  as 
true  as  it  is  astonishing  to  many  who  hear  me.  It  is  this : 
That  to  the  Baptists  belong  the  honor  of  establishing  civ* 
il  liberty.  Our  form  of  church  government  planned  the 
basis  of  American  freedom,  and  has  bequeathed  both  civil 
and  religious  liberty  to  one  half  the  world,  and  is  now  rock- 
ing the  other  half  to  its  centre,  crumbling  the  thrones  of  its 
tyrants  and  arousing  oppressed  humanity  to  rise  and  as- 
sert its  rights  and  overthrow  its  oppressors. 

We  appeal  to  Jefferson,  the  second  President  of  the 
United  States  and  the  greatest  statesman  of  America,  a 
man  of  truth  and  benevolence,  and  not  an  infidel  as  some 
have  slanderously  asserted.  Some  eight  years  before  the 
Revolution  Mr.  Jefferson  was  a  regular  attendant  at  the 
meetings  of  a  small  Baptist  church  in  his  vicinity,  and  hav- 
ing invited  Andrew  Tribble,  its  pastor,  home  to  dine  with 
him,  Mr.  T.  asked  him  what  he  thought  of  their  form  of 
church  government,  who  replied,  "  that  it  had  struck  him 
with  great  force,  and  had  interested  him  no  little;  that  he 
had  concluded  that  it  would  he  the  best  pla'n  of  government 
for  the  American  colonies.^  It  is  plain  to  be  seen  that  his 
ideas  of  a  free  government  which  he  obtained  from  attend- 
ing Mr.  Tribble's  church  flow,  throughout  that  immortal 
instrument,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

We  appeal  to  Judge  Story,  Chief  Justice,  and  the  great- 
est jurist  in  America,  who  said  :  "To  Roger  Williams  belongs 
the  honor  of  establishing  in  this  country  a  code  of  laws  in 
which  we  read  for  the  first  time  since  Christianity  ascended 


219 


the  throne  of  the  Caesars,  the  declaration  that  conscience 
should  be  free,  mid  man  allowed  to  worship  his  Creator  as 
he  believed  his  duty  required  him" 

We  appeal  to  Bancroft,  the  most  eminent  historian  in 
America.  He  says  that  "  Roger  Williams,  when  but  30 
years  of  age,  had  matured  a  doctrine  which  secures  him  im- 
mortality of  fame,  as  its  application  has  given  religious 
peace  to  the  American  world." 

We  turn  to  the  Old  World— to  Germany,  the  land  of 
scholars  and  historians.  Gervinus,  the  most  astute  histo- 
rian of  his  age,  says :  "  Roger  Williams,  having  fled  for  his 
life  from  Massachusetts  in  1636,  founded  the  colony  of 
Rhode  Island.  Here  in  his  little  State  the  fundamental 
principles  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  prevailed  before  they 
were  taught  in  any  of  the  schools  of  philosophy  in  Europe. 
From  this  little  State  they  have  extended  throughout  the 
United  States.  They  have  given  laws  to  a  continent,  and 
lie  at  the  bottom  of  all  democratic  movements  which  are 
now  shaking  the  nations  of  Europe." 

Coming  down  a  little  later,  Patrick  Henry,  in  Virginia, 
gave  the  final  blow  to  the  separation  of  the  Church  and 
State.  The  people  were  taxed  to  support  the  clergy  of  the 
Episcopal  Church,  and  the  taxes  were  collected  just  as  they 
are  now  in  this  country.  A  circumstance  occurred  which 
brought  to  the  front  the  great  patriot  of  Virginia.  The 
taxes  were  assessed  for  a  certain  amount  of  money  per  cap- 
ita, or  a  certain  number  of  pounds  of  tobacco,  it  being  op- 
tional with  the  people  which  they  would  pay.  The  price  of 
tobacco  suddenly  advanced;  these  preachers  refused  to  take 
the  money  and  demanded  the  tobacco.  The  people  ap- 
pealed to  the  courts.  Patrick  Henry,  who  now  was  scarce- 
ly known,  appeared  for  the  people,  and  by  his  thrilling  elo- 
quence drove  the  clergymen  from  their  seats,  and  not  only 
defeated  their  claim  to  the  tobacco,  but  succeeded  in  break- 
ing down  that  unjust  and  iniquitous  statute,  and  forever 
abolished  it ;  so  that  these  clergymen  had  to  depend  upon 
their  own  characters  for  their  support.  The  Baptists  were 
now  free.  Patrick  Henry,  though  not  a  Baptist,  was  their 
legal  defender,  and  from  the  very  first,  as  all  historians 
agree,  they  united  with  him  to  a  man  in  espousing  the  cause 
of  the  Revolution.  Throughout  the  whole  country,  from 
Georgia  to  Massachusetts,  they  were  everywhere  publicly 
committed  to  the  cause,  beyond  any  other  religious  denom- 


220 


iiiatioii,  and  as  such  their  houses  of  worship  were  destroy- 
ed wherever  the  British  forces  went.  So  we  see  "  they  prac- 
ticed what  they  preached,"  and  were  ever  ready  to  defend 
Avith  their  lives  those  principles  of  liberty  bequeathed  to 
them  by  their  ancestors.  We  rejoice  to  know  that  these 
principles  are  more  rapidly  progressing'  in  the  last  100 
years ;  they  are  silently  at  work  permeating  all  countries  of 
Europe,  Asia  and  Africa.  As  they  progress,  side  by  side 
with  them,  the  arts  and  sciences  advance — the  one  is  the 
promoter  of  the  other.  Before  these  principles  were  ac- 
knowledged, there  was  but  little  incentive  to  discovery  and 
invention.  Before  that,  100  years  ago,  there  was  no  rail- 
road in  this  country,  no  steamboats,  no  telegraphs,  no  tel- 
ephones, no  Sabbath  schools,  and  only  now  and  then  a 
meeting  house.  Why,  when  this  church  was  organized  10C) 
years  ago,  the  " report''  says  with  only  eleven  members — 
it  was  the  only  one  in  all  the  surrounding  counties.  What 
a  change!  Look  at  Catholic  Spain  and  infidel  France,  where 
a  little  over  100  years  ago  our  brethren  were  hunted  down 
for  the  slaughter,  and  their  Bibles  stacked  and  burnt.  Xow 
our  missionaries  preach  the  everlasting  gospel  among  them 
unmolested.  In  India  where  Judson  gave  up  his  life,  there 
is  now  the  largest  church  membership  in  the  world,  num- 
bering some  14,000  communicants.  In  China ,  whose  ports 
100  years  ago  were  shut  up  from  the  civilized  world,  our 
own  Yates,  the  prince  of  missionaries,  is  now*  preaching  an (1 
sending  the  Bible  to  her  four  hundred  millions  of  benighted 
heathen. 

In  Italy  the  Pope,  who  for  1500  years  pursued  the  Bap- 
tists with  fire  and  sword,  is  shut  up  in  the  Vatican  and  is 
afraid  ''  to  show  his  head.''  Our  beloved  Taylor  is  preach- 
ing the  name  of  Jesus  in  the  Eternal  City,  where  Peter  Avas 
crucified,  and  Avhere  Paul  "finished  his  course."  In  Lon- 
don, the  metropolis  of  the  world,  Charles  H.  Spurgeon  ranks 
as  the  highest  pulpit  orator  of  the  globe.  In  Russia,  in  the 
isles  of  the  sea,  -'from  Greenland's  icy  mountain"  to  the 
burning  sands  of  Africa,  these  ever  blessed  principles  are 
spreading,  ameliora  ting  and  Christianizing  the  unfortun  ate 
millions  of  our  race.  Who,  then,  may  not  feel  proud  to  be 
numbered  among  the  successors  of  "such  a  cloud  of  wit- 
nesses? "  Who  would  feel  ashamed  to  belong  to  the  great 
Baptist  family  Avho  hold  up  to  the  people  of  the  nineteenth 
century  such  a  glorious  record? 


221 


In  the  year  1727,  the  first  Baptist  church  was  organ- 
ized in  North  Carolina  in  Camden  county  at  Shiloh,  and 
remains  to  this  day.  In  1729  it  numbered  132  members, 
one  to  eVery  312  population.  "When  Brier  Creek  church 
was  constituted,  there  were  about  80  Baptist  churches  in 
the  State  with  about  6,000  members.  Ten  years  ago,  ac- 
cording to  the  best  information,  there  were  1,000  Baptist 
churches,  and  one-eighth  of  the  whole  population  were  Ba  p- 
tists. According  to  the  illustrated  Almanac,  published  this 
year  by  the  editors  of  the  Raleigh  News  and ObservernewH- 
paper,  there  were  214,082  Baptists  in  the  State,  while  all 
the  other  denominations  added  together  number  182.900. 
thus  giving  the  Baptists  a  majority  of  31,182  over  all 
But  according  to  the  estimate  in  the  Baptist  Almanac,  we 
have  a  majority  of  44,375  over  all.  In  the  United  States 
there  were  only  about  100,000  Baptists  100  years  ago. 
To-day  they  number  over  4,000,000. 

Let  us  pause  here  and  take  a  telescopic  view  of  the  next 
100»  years .  If  the  advocates  of  these  principles  continue  to 
increase  in  the  same  proportion,  what  a  host  of  witnesses 
will  celebrate  the  next  centennial !  Not  one  of  us  will  be  here 
of  this  large  congregation  to  enjoy  that  magnificent  gath- 
ering, but  we  may  leave  for  them  to  behold  our  footprints 
by  our  works  for  the  Master.  Those  immortalspiritsthat 
planted- this  church  gaze  down  upon  us  to-day  from  the 
skies,  while  their  mortal  bodies  have  mouldered  to  dust  in 
yonder  churchyard,  or  scattered  about  in  other  localities. 
Let  us  emulate  their  deeds  of  love  and  cherish  their  memo- 
ries. The  Clevelands,  the  Bakers,  the  Gilliams,  the  Adams", 
the  Martins,  the  Aliens,  and  that  devoted  old  pastor,  Thom- 
as Masten,  have  all  gone  to  their  reward,  after  long  years 
of  labor  in  their  Master's  vineyard. 

My  task  is  done.  I  have  thus  feebly  and  briefly  traced 
the  line  of  our  ancestors  through  suffering  and  persecution, 
who  have  left  in  our  hands  these  principles  of  sacred  liberty 
to  preserve  and  transmit  to  the  latest  generations,  when 
there  will  be  but  k'One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism." 
(Ephesifins  4-.").) 

"  Better,  though  difficult,  the  right  way  to  g'o, 
Thnn^wjrnjg-,  though  easy,  where  the  end  is  woe." 


222 


THE  BAPTISTS  IN  NORTH  CAROLINA, 

[Wilmington  Star— Written  by  T.  B.  Kinsbiny,  D.  D.,  One  of  the  Editors.] 

The  first  Baptist  church  in  North  Carolina  was  organ- 
ized by  the  Eev.  Paul  Palmer,  in  1727,  in  Camden  county, 
and  is  still  in  existence.  The  first  Baptist  Associat  ion  was 
that  of  Sandy  Creek,  formed  in  1758,  and  composed  of 
churches  in  the  centre  of  the  State.  This  was  the  third  As- 
sociation in  the  United  States,  the  Philadelphia  having 
been  formed  in  1707,  and  the  Charleston  in  1751. 

The  Baptist  State  convention,  however,  did  not  come 
into  existence  till  1830,  at  which  time  there  Avere  in  the 
State  fourteen  Associations,  two  hundred  and  seventy -two 
churches  and  15,360  members.  On  the  20th  of  March  of 
that  year,  fourteen  men,  seven  ministers  and  seven  laymen, 
met  in  the  town  of  Greenville,  Pitt  county,  in  the  house  of 
Dr.  J.  C.  Gorham,  and  founded  the  institution  which 'has 
proved  a  bond  of  union  and  an  efficient  source  of  develop- 
ment to  the  Baptists  of  the  State.  The  constitution 
adopted  by  the  convention,  and  a  wise  and  masterly  ad- 
dress commending  it  to  the  denomination,  were  written  by 
the  Kev.  Thomas  Meredith,  founder  of  the  Biblical  Re- 
corder, the  Baptist  organ  of  the  State,  and  grandfather  of 
the  Rev.  George  Meredith  Tolson,  the  present  pastor  of  the 
Brooklyn  Baptist  church  of  this  city. 

This  convention  is  not  a  legislative  or  a  judicial  body  : 
it  makes  no  laws,  appoints  no  pastors,  tries  no  cause  in- 
volving doctrine  or  character;  indeed,  it  exercises  no  con- 
trol whatever  over  the  churches  and  Associations  it  repre- 
sents, except  the  moral  right  inherent  in  the  objects  it  com- 
mends to  their  favor  and  support. 

It  is  a  voluntary  assembly  of  the  representatives  of  the 
churches  to  consider  the  general  interests  of  the  Kingdom 
of  Christ;  more  especially  home  and  foreign  missions, 
Christian  education  and  Sunday  schools.  The  polity  of 
the  Baptist  Church  is  peculiar.  Each  church  is  a  sover- 
eignty—an independent  little  republic— competent  to  man- 
age its  own  affairs,  and  yet  authorized  to  make  no  laws, 
but  simply  to  administer  the  laws  which  Jesus  Christ,  the 
head  of  the  Church,  has  Himself  enacted  for  its  government. 


223 

This  sovereignty,  it  is  claimed,  is  inherent  in  each  church, 
and  cannot  be  surrendered  or  Avaived,  and  yet  for  the  pro- 
motion of  the  cause  of  religion  it  has  been  found  wise  for 
these  independent  churches  to  associate  together  and  unite 
their  efforts  in  extending  the  truth.  Hence,  contiguous 
churches  form  Associations ;  the  churches  of  many  Associa- 
tions unite  in  State  conventions,  and  these  State  conven- 
tions become  constituent  parts  of  a  general  convention, 
comprehending  all  the  Southern  States. 

The  Baptists  were  the  first  denomination  to  utilize  the 
powers  of  the  press ;  Thomas  Meredith  having  established 
the  Biblical  Recorder  in  1832,  years  before  any  other  re- 
ligious journal  was  published  in  the  State.  Wake  Forest 
College  Avas  the  first  denominational  college  in  the  State, 
beginning  operations  in  1833,  and  the  first  Church  Or- 
phanage was  that  of  the  Baptists  at  Thomasville.  which 
has  now  been  in  existence  about  a  year. 


